Much has been written about manliness and the qualities that make a man a man. It seems to be the chief preoccupation of ancient writings, as they describe what makes some men worthy of honor and others worthy of disdain. The Bible, The Iliad and Odyssey, and The Sagas of the Icelanders are all examples of ancient books telling us about manliness and how it is achieved. In the Old Testament, characters are manly because they are upright and God fearing. In the Iliad and Odyssey, characters’ manliness is judged by skills with weapons and the courage to use those skills as they lead their men into battle. In The Sagas of the Icelanders, men are weighed by the respect they command from other men.
The Timeless Question
The question “What does it mean to be a man?” is timeless, and I’m sure I couldn’t begin to answer it in one short post. Activities and attributes of men vary by whom you ask; some say hard work, others say military service; playing football, bench press max, alcohol tolerance, and number of women bedded all come up as well. None of these completely sum up manhood, and more abstract conceptions of masculinity seem to evade most modern men completely. The more I talk to my peers in America, the more I realize that traditional masculine traits, like honor, assertiveness, and self-sufficiency are wholly unfamiliar to them. They are genuinely confused by yesterday’s conception of manhood, and I can’t really blame them; feminism’s victory over Western civilization is complete for the time being. Even using the word “manliness” will be laughed at if used seriously in many crowds.
There is a branch of theology called apophatic theology that seeks to define God by defining what he is not, using negatives rather than positives to describe the deity. Applying this kind of reasoning to lost ideas of manliness is useful because we can take a machete to the parts of our culture that drag us down. Western civilization has spiraled into madness by allowing the worst instincts of masculinity and femininity to run amok, and further, most of our culture is the antithesis of manliness. Despite how difficult it is to even begin to cut through the rot of our corrupt society, there is one thing that stands out as particularly opposed to masculinity.
Being A Victim Is The Opposite Of Manliness
“Victim” implies a passivity, a sense of a person being at the mercy of circumstances. With the victim archetype dominating the Western consciousness since the Holocaust, victimhood is the raison d’être for the various “progressive” movements. Saints are made of people who have done nothing meaningful in their entire lives, with their defining moment consisting the misfortune that befalls them.
Tragedy, of course, is a prominent feature in human stories from the ancient oral traditions of primitive hunter gatherers to modern tales like Moby Dick, but there is a vast difference between those stories and the standard victim story that is trotted out daily in America. Emphasis in older stories was placed on the protagonists’ reactions to their bad luck, or the events the actions they had taken to bring the tragedies down on themselves. Modern stories always portray victims as hapless, innocent individuals at the mercy of their fates. Is quietly accepting your fate manly?
Living Under The Umbrella Of Victimhood
My grandparents lived through the Great Depression and World War II, events causing great human suffering. They told stories about my infant aunts and uncles almost dying in Hooverville conditions, going hungry for weeks, and working long days for pennies. One of my grandfathers was a hobo, jumping freight trains across America to work in construction, logging, and farming, dodging railroad bulls and the other dangers that waited for those who rode the rails. No matter what they went through, their accounts were about what they did to make the best of their bad situations, not sob stories. Nothing could be more different from the stories we hear today.
In true Newspeak style, language that was meant convey strength is used to describe weakness. Victims become heroes. Quasi-religious imagery is used to convey martyrdom. The mediocre become objects of praise. And in the end, that is what the worship of victims is about. It is to absolve everyone from responsibility, to encourage passivity, and to idealize a life of permanent inaction.
With victim hood held up as admirable, it is no surprise that establishing victim credentials is a sought-after qualification to separate oneself from the oppressors. The irony of white feminists from wealthy backgrounds claiming the victim mantle is especially absurd. The victim mentality underlies every part of the second-wave feminist philosophy, so as true victims become rarer, they do their utmost to contrive anything that proves that they are being downtrodden. As they delve deeper and deeper looking for new victims, the genuine compassion we should feel for the unfortunate is diluted. At its heart, victim worship is inherently pornographic as it allows us to revel in the pathetic. As Nietschze said, pity is really just contempt in disguise.
The Alternative
Passivity, powerlessness, haplessness: no matter your definition of masculinity, I doubt you would want to use these in your description of yourself. Reject the victim mentality in all of its forms. Casting yourself as a victim can feel really good, but at what price? It turns you into a mere actor buffeted by the cruel forces that surround you. Who are you to resist?
Perhaps if men collectively undertook the journey to reject the antithesis of manliness, The Victim, they would rediscover positive masculinity on the way by exploring the chasm traditional masculinity has left behind. The alternative is to feel sorry for ourselves as we fade into oblivion, the perpetual victim.
Read More: The Men’s Right Movement Is No Place For Men
This is the kind of stuff I started visiting this site for. Nice write up.
So I take it you won’t be interested in my upcoming “Orgy Crashers” essay……
Oh well
orgy ? did someone say orgy, what orgy….. why wasn’t i invited ?
“How to fuck hoes at pool parties” is a non-article anyway. Thats what they are there for. Getting hoes to fuck at pool parties is as easy as getting a Giraffe to eat leaves.
” Getting hoes to fuck at pool parties is as easy as getting a Giraffe to eat leaves.”….not to a beta/blue-pill victim.
That’s why you don’t concern yourself with them.
It’s a “you can lead a whorse to water” thing. (Typo intended). Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep. If a blue-pill idiot doesn’t understand that, then you can’t teach a thirsty person to drink from the well. No need to explain to them how to not bang chicks.
Great literature would be something like “How to not get falsely accused of rape when a hoe at a pool party wants to get fucked and then changes her mind the next morning because she doesn’t understand the basic difference between regret and rape.”
Now THAT’s a useful article.
“Men CREATE themselves”
And that creation is not feminine.
Most definitely. 100 excla-man-tion points. When I hear a woman attempt to define “a real man”, I see red. With all the falling over themselves to define “a man” they have completely forgotten (and are totally unwilling) to define THEMSELVES.
Yes, it is. Hoes fuck anything. I have seen the wet-crotched emo fags that they gladly go down on. I swear, I get so sick of these guys – probably 16 year olds – who think that “alpha” and “red pill” equals “acting like a dog at a leg-humping convention.” Are these twats convincing themselves that they are “alpha” because they get hoes at pool parties? Brother, there are plenty of hoes at pool parties that would let your dog hump them, under the right circumstances. Do not be proud, or in any way think that you are “alpha,” for easily getting such castaways.
An alpha male is a man that owns his masculinity, shapes it ethically and rationally, and projects it onto the world to the best of his ability and with due regard to the rational order of the Cosmos. Anything less than this, is weakness, passivity and victimhood. Mere “dominance” of others is not an alpha trait, if the man has not first dominated himself and learned what the limits that refuse his dominance are. A tyrant is not an alpha, but an infant. Just because he has gotten what he wants, people fear him and women are eager to sit on him, does not mean he is a strong man. He is despicably weak, and when the fire that consumes the Cosmos is kindled, he will be one of the first, puny twigs to catch the flame. All that will be remembered from him, was the smoke and the stink as he roasted, and that will be forgotten before long, too. But at least he’ll have the eternal memory of all the hoes that slimed his rod at a pool party.
Except, saying that men are “self-defining,” is itself an act that defines men and manhood. People don’t understand the importance of delimitation when thinking rationally or philosophically about things, anymore.
The fact is, that there are “sine quibus non” elements of masculinity. That’s why men have always pursued common goals of masculinity in groups – tribes, fraternities, orders, guilds, etc. I think everyone would agree that “an easily offended fag who supervises the anus-bleaching procedure at the spa,” is certainly not going to be a real man. There are limits on masculinity. Any time you take a position of any kind, you are framing limits. Even saying that “nobody gets to define a man,” is defining a man, limiting what is and isn’t appropriate to manhood. C’mon guys, we’re not feminists! Let’s get a little more rational thought up in here, and a little less emotional self-flattery and bravado.
Interesting you point that out. Good eye.
Agreed. Telling a man “men create themselves” is just another way of defining men for them. But it has one distinct exception from all the other definitions of a “man”.
You defer 100% of the definition over to him.
…. thereby absolving yourself of any lecturing, preaching or defining. It’s just a push. Holding the mirror up. That’s it. You’re not actually telling him how to comb his hair, what to wear, how to act, think or do….. which is what women LOVE to do when defining “a man”.
Her definition will ALWAYS be “do what I want”, or “do what I like”, or “make yourself useful to me”. It will never be “go do what is in YOUR best interests”….. and almost ALWAYS not good for him, and too often leads to his detriment & downfall.
“Men create themselves” is not even an instruction or a demand. It’s an OBSERVATION. It’s asking/expecting nothing of him. It’s like filling up the canteen so he has something to drink as he marches into the desert.
He will now *ration*(alize) this himself. 100%. You leave him free to sip over several days… or let him waste it. But the definition is his alone.
The modern world is not interested in the male dream, the male desire, or the male needs and wants. The western world is gynocrazy, and men must dodge that shit with absolute will and remain coherent at all times.
“Men create themselves” comes in handy like a Samurai sword when you need to cut through the thick vagina bush jungle – and clear a visible path for yourself. It’s needed mostly for DEFLECTION of every other bullshit definition… and those 3 words sharpen the edge.
It isn’t enough to just “be a man” in today’s world. You have to also work at NOT subscribing to the fem-bullshit bombarding you from everywhere and survive that as well. And that’s JUST to be able to make the choice YOURSELF.
Like not starting from 0…. but -5 steps back.
“men create themselves” puts him at 0.
Now he’s got a shot. The rest is up to him.
I can agree that men create themselves. There is a difference between creating, and defining, and I thought by the way you had responded to Will, that you saw them as basic equivalents. It seems, as you expatiated, that you don’t quite see them that way.
I was just saying, that if we tell a man that nobody and nothing “defines” him, other than himself, we have actually already defined him. What we have told him then, is that a man is nothing definite, by definition – a logical fallacy, and a dangerous lie. We’ve prevented him from even considering that honor, integrity, strength, rational liberty, authority and fatherhood of one type or another, etc., are objectively and substantively related to manhood; we’ve told him that those things aren’t really important, and that nothing is, per se, really important. All that matters is what he “feels and wants and thinks” manhood should be, “for him.” This, in my opinion, is the essence of the effeminate mind, into which bad people of both genders sink by default: it all centers around me and what I like and think and feel. I think that manhood is defined by certain objective qualities. That said, I would agree with you that a man *creates* himself. If women are trying to define what a man is, the answer isn’t to say that men define themselves, but to say that men should disregard private opinions, especially from women, about masculinity; they should then drink deep from the rivers of the masculine tradition, find what is universally masculine, and also which particular traits they have, and how they will best be put at the service of masculinity, and then, as you say, *create* – but not “define” – themselves. Yes, the matter should be put in his hands, and he should realize that only he will be responsible for his success or failure; but he should also understand that his duty is to become a man, not to obliterate manhood by submersing masculinity in relativistic, feminist tripe.
If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.
Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.
Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.
If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.
So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“If a real man uses reason, then tell me friend: what, other than physical attributes, are the differences between men and women? Because, if we are to be rational in our discourse, we ought to make for a full account of our positions.”
You are misusing the term rational, this is a logical discourse. Rational means… rational.
“Any real differences, anything that should really matter when it comes to one group of people being better than another, come with characteristics that necessarily accompany the better group. For example, if we take a two groups of men, exactly the same, except one in the first group every man is an honorable man and in the second no men are honorable men, then the difference in honor is what makes the first group better than the second.”
Ok, sure.
“Now, let’s say that you think that men are better than women. There would be two two possible kinds of reasons you could have for this; either reasons based on physical traits. or reasons not based on physical traits.”
Meh, that is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
“If you say that men are superior to women based on the physical traits of each gender, you run into a problem. Using the physical traits as a basis for male superiority is not a good argument. This is because you’re saying that having male genitalia makes one better than someone with female genitalia, and while you may initially agree with this argument, let’s look at what this entails. You are saying, in this argument, that because one person is born a man he is better than a person born a woman. This gives the man no merit of his own for his superiority, as it is merely an accident of birth that makes him male. It’s like saying that a man born in Maine is better than a man born in New York – an accident of birth, which entails no amount of choice or effort on the part of the one claimed to be superior, does not have true bearing on whether one person is better than another. To say that it does would be equivalent to saying that rich men are better than poor men by the fact that they are born rich, though the opposite is generally true.”
Ok, a valid point.
“So, if we truly want to keep in reason to ground our claims, we must say that men are superior to women solely because of what a man is aside from his body. But here is where if find myself confused, and so I ask for your help – I cannot see any attribute attributable to a man that cannot be attributable to a woman as well. If we see that the physical differences, which are circumstances of birth, are not the reason why men are better than women, then it MUST be something aside from that which makes men superior. But I cannot think of what that could be, and if there is nothing which can be attributed to a man which cannot also be attributed to a woman, then, rationally speaking, that would mean that men are not superior to women. Ideas?”
Sure, if that’s what you have concluded.
This website is more or less about how certain social institutions have damaged men both by affecting their psyche and by limiting their ‘masculine power’, in other words they have been limited socially.
We are not really discussing the logical, rigorous, proof that men are superior to women, because such a thing is impossible to prove.
Rather we seek to better ourselves, to change anti-masculine (read: anti human-nature) societal barriers, to bring awareness to the demonization of men, to get our needs met in a species that is still amazingly cruel in the reproductive sense, and to overall stop men from being shit on.
Rationality means common sense. Logic means… logic.
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
“Hoes go to pool parties for purpose of getting banged ball deep”….
Most ridiculous sentence of the year ?
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
Is it??
You think they are there to go SWIMMING???
You hav a lot to learn about women.
being a highly successful lesbian, I’m not sure I do..
“Highly successful lesbian” is a contradiction in terms. Nature has selected you for extinction.
not an invalid point. I just find a great amount of solace in the fact that the majority of women that you think are attracted to the suggested behaviour on this website just think you’re all silly..
not an invalid point. I just find a great amount of solace in the fact that the majority of women that you think are attracted to the suggested behaviour on this website just think you’re all silly..
THE TRUTH IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SUBSCRIBE TO IT.
You should have figured that out by now. As well, as the reality that what women SAY they are attracted to… is not the same as what they ARE attracted to.
50 shades of grey is plenty of proof of that.
While you don’t know anything about women, perhaps the remaining amount of solace can be found in that fact this is not a website for women (who are forbidden to read or comment) and doesn’t exist because anyone cares what you think.
The fact that you think it’s “silly” is meaningless.
THE TRUTH IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SUBSCRIBE TO IT.
You should have figured that out by now. As well, as the reality that what women SAY they are attracted to… is not the same as what they ARE attracted to.
50 shades of grey is plenty of proof of that.
While you don’t know anything about women, perhaps the remaining amount of solace can be found in that fact this is not a website for women (who are forbidden to read or comment) and doesn’t exist because anyone cares what you think.
The fact that you think it’s “silly” is meaningless.
While I appreciate your argument backed up by such reliable sources as a fictitious novel I’m honestly just trolling. I’ll leave you men to your important manly business. If you ever need any real woman advice let me know.
I’d also like to say thank fuck I’m British.
While I appreciate your argument backed up by such reliable sources as a fictitious novel I’m honestly just trolling. I’ll leave you men to your important manly business. If you ever need any real woman advice let me know.
I’d also like to say thank fuck I’m British.
The “reliable source” is the very fact that it’s a whopping best seller among women. You don’t see them running to buy “tell her she’s beautiful and gaze into her eyes all day”. But they sure love to be gagged, spanked, hair pulled, choked and how did I put it? Oh yes, “pounded ball deep”. You just won’t hear them SAY it. And YOU won’t hear it because you don’t even have a dick.
But don’t be ridiculous.
NOBODY “needs a woman’s advice”.
Let alone a lesbian’s.
That’s like a housecat giving a Lion “advice”.
Useless.
British Lesbians have no business offering “advice” about women. From way over here, I can already hear you scarfing down the bangers and mash between sentences.
The “reliable source” is the very fact that it’s a whopping best seller among women. You don’t see them running to buy “tell her she’s beautiful and gaze into her eyes all day”. But they sure love to be gagged, spanked, hair pulled, choked and how did I put it? Oh yes, “pounded ball deep”. You just won’t hear them SAY it. And YOU won’t hear it because you don’t even have a dick.
But don’t be ridiculous.
NOBODY “needs a woman’s advice”.
Let alone a lesbian’s.
That’s like a housecat giving a Lion “advice”.
Useless.
British Lesbians have no business offering “advice” about women. From way over here, I can already hear you scarfing down the bangers and mash between sentences.
mmhmm nom nom they taste gooood
mmhmm nom nom they taste gooood
I accept your withdrawal.
I accept your withdrawal.
P.S. I’m Scottish. From the “Manliest country in the world”, and its haggis, neeps and tatties, ya bam.
lonely faggot is lonely
Now, that was a good come back! Tom, ur the [email protected]$&?ing man!
you write like a gay
Smile on my face, Ron.
Did you write a book or something? Would really like to read it. Your writing sounds interesting..
Well, shit. What a nice compliment. Yeah I’ve written a book. But as yet, unpublished, and still a work in progress myself. Thank you. Most sincerely.
Well, shit. What a nice compliment. Yeah I’ve written a book. But as yet, unpublished, and still a work in progress myself. Thank you. Most sincerely.
Great, let me know when you are finished. I am really into american comedy 🙂
Great, let me know when you are finished. I am really into american comedy 🙂
Great, let me know when you are finished. I am really into american comedy 🙂
Great, let me know when you are finished. I am really into american comedy 🙂
Great, let me know when you are finished. I am really into american comedy 🙂
Sorry to have to disappoint. I’m not an American. English isn’t my first language. It’s not even my second. But even more flattered now that you think I am an American writer.
I am not an native English speaker, either. But since this is an american site, I assumed you were american. But never mind, comedy is comedy. Share the laugh with everyone 🙂
I am not an native English speaker, either. But since this is an american site, I assumed you were american. But never mind, comedy is comedy. Share the laugh with everyone 🙂
The site might be American, but I don’t write for this site. Visitors here are worldwide I would imagine.
The site might be American, but I don’t write for this site. Visitors here are worldwide I would imagine.
just saying, people who think they’re right and the rest of the world is wrong and crazy, and constantly scream about this, are usually psychopaths. congrats, prick.
“Women “find themselves”.
Men CREATE themselves.”
Truth.
you probably wrote “,men give birth to themselves” then thought better of it. C’mon boys push
surely a truly british lesbian would lie back and think of england (or wales, scotland or northern ireland) while breeding passively with a hairy moustachio’d hero who really couldn’t give a monkeys about who you’d like to write poetry about. Do it for england, and when you’ve popped a few out for blighty then you can sneak off to to billingsgate market for a fish fest and a refreshing drink from the furry well of loneliness
ah, that explains the treacherous desire for independence. Little sex tip for scottish lesbians: if you want to satisfy your woman don’t deep fry your mars bar
I think independence is an awful idea. Same for deep fried mars bars. It’s funny, in Scotland we have this thing where you can have differing tastes from others and still be civil?
No, because that’s the difference with Britain and the US. No one judges my lifestyle openly, nor am I confined to live a lie, and if people disagree they’re too damned polite to say anything.
also, I’m not, nor have ever been lonely.
Yes, we need more rational thought provoking comments on this glorious website.
You, like myself have a TRUE understanding of this topic.
You must’ve gotten fucked over real bad by some chick. Your opinions disgust me
MUST I have?
Are you saying women fuck people over?????
And since you are SO CERTAIN of it – to the point where you believe i MUST have been fucked over (even though you couldn’t possibly know) – then that means you already know that women everywhere FUCK PEOPLE OVER.
So how is that a MAN’s problem?
If I fuck you over……
does that mean there is something wrong with YOU?
Think about it.
And then remind yourself that I never let a woman pass her bastard womb turd off as mine. Never paid a cunt alimony. And never went through a divorce. So while my opinion disgusts you, your opinion makes me laugh my fucking head off.
I see no reason at all whatsoever why a man cannot rid his mind of the sickening victim mentality AND pursue sex with hoes at pool parties. Life is as much about self-improvement as it is about pleasure and enjoyment.
Because a man that will debase himself to have sex with hoes at a pool party already is an interior victim, even if he doesn’t like to associate with his victimhood status. The manly philosophers of times past all agreed, with one accord, that pursuing irrational pleasures was naturally an effeminate and unmanly act. Even Epicurus did not endorse “hedonism,” as we understand that term today, but rather, a pursuit of legitimate pleasures enjoyed with due, manly reasonableness. Boinking slatterns left and right is the act of a child, a twat, a masturbating bonobo. A man like that is a slave to vagina, not lord and master of himself and those subject to him.
Plato and Socrates had it right – the man who is always chasing pleasure, lusting and satisfying, lusting and satisfying – is akin to a catamite or a coward. The real man controls himself, is not dominated by his impulses, and enjoys the one woman, who is under his complete authority… and even then, in rational and moderate ways.
Lighten up man. Get off ur pretentious high horse. Maybe u should get laid. There is a time to work and a time to play.
you are correct but “how to fuck hoes at pool parties” alone leaves the intellect unsatisfied.
never heard of a mindfuck?
come on man… fucking hoes at pool parties is one of the most important things in life….
that said this article kicks ass… thanks Mjolnir
loyalty and honor is the spin off from not playing victim… and victims suck….
another point you didn’t bring out is that by pushing victim mentality the system is able to create heros in it’s service personnel, police, fireman, social workers etc. even if they have actually done much more than any decent person would do under the same circumstances…
“we create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum…. “
Would you visit this site for investment advice like ‘Mega-Brothel Investing in Germany? ‘Pool Party Investment Tips’? Or weighty “intellectual” topics like ‘Hoes and Prostitutes, a Dichotomy or a Continuum?’ I say “Continuum”, what say ye?
We could become like the Economist, hella intellectual:
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21589922-has-liberalisation-oldest-profession-gone-too-far-giant-teutonic-brothel
“In some places, streetwalkers line up along motorways with open-air booths nearby for quickies. In others, such as Saarbrücken, near the border with a stricter country like France, entrepreneurs are investing in mega-brothels that cater to cross-border demand.”
Wow, if this is the real Larry David, this site has yet achieved another landmark accomplishment.
gays in my ass
The real Larry David would never be on here. Larry David announced himself to be a feminist…..and I know all feminists hate sites like this and we hate feminists.
Manliness is courage. It’s simple really.
Bran thought about it. ‘Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?’
‘That is the only time a man can be brave,’ his father told him.
All American men are victims. Look at the pathetic females we have to live with every day. Their version of a man? An accessory, just like their coach purse. Unnaturally good looks, naive and malleable. Or feminized tranny wannabes. Thats what American females like. The other 95% of us are considered below average according to them. A real man is anyone that can survive and retain a strong will and character in the face of this putrid, ludicrous, state-sponsered, thirsty mangina bootlicking enabled, Madison Avenue consumer driven shit show we call the USA. A man that against these odds can rise above, be successful, and keep his dignity and grace.
I agree that men have suffered horrible effects from the feminine lust to keep men as perpetual boys and their utter contempt for men they do keep as perpetual boys. However, it is a very good thing for a man to recognize what has happened and instead of wallowing in misery to actively take small and certain steps to rise above their circumstances, even if they can only do so to a small degree. Any development of genuine masculinity, no matter how small, is diamonds and gold in a world full of cheap feminine costume jewelry.
So stop giving American women the time of day until they act otherwise. I get the inkling suspicion that the average manospherist just bitches about this stuff on the internet like a little kid. Then does not talk about it otherwise.
A man is not afraid or scared to have a rational dialouge about this in public, in real life. Sure you might be labeled as a politically incorrect asshole, but thats not the point. The real women will respect you that much more for it. Especially if you have the data to back it up.
Its time to rebuild and start anew with the tools that we have been given. Screw this enjoy the decline crap. A man does not sit back while his kind are being destroyed day by day. He works around the clock to stop the madness.
Maybe in other countries, but in the USA (and other anglo countries) I’m pretty sure most women are incapable of understanding this stuff. They have been brainwashed to the point of no return.
Not to mention that the American women have their mangina counterparts programmed for their self-defense. “speak up” in the USA? Sure, go right ahead. See how fast you lose your job, your friends, piss off your neighbors, get labeled a misogynist, rapist, women hater. The game is over, and we lost. Sorry to break it to ya. Keep doing those military presses and going to those pool parties.
Looks like you’re a dying breed then. Have fun with your dignity in extinction.
The butthurt runs strong within you, comrade.
What is manliness?
Being strong in both mind and body. A man needs a woman like a fish needs to be told why riding that bicycle makes him a sexist. A man that bends to the will of women in any way shape or form is not a man. A man needs to be able to kill, study, and apply both to his life.
no phaggot, manliness is what the genetical superhero has and never questioned about it. It’s something created by the lesser male humans like you to try to understand what makes a man so attractive in the eyes of women.
Wrong. The “genetical superhero” is the faggot. He relies only on his looks for everything in life. No brains, no substance, no character. Just the same kind of creature as the shallow attractive females that pursue him. Jesus you are a douchebag.
This is standard feminist / white knight shaming language: the concept that a person with an advantage in attractiveness, popularity, sex appeal, musculature or wealth must be somehow deficient in other aspects of personality, so is therefore less desirable than the person doing the shaming.
It’s simple jealousy: a defense mechanism used by the ugly, lazy and bitter to tear down their betters.
apply killing to his life?
lol, are you fucking phaggots really still so involved with all this mental masturbation?
Can’t you fucking understand that manliness is not an acquired trait. It’s only due to genes and environmental exposure until end of puberty. Only masculine men can pull out all these behaviors without appearing as tryhard faggots. And they don’t even need it. Any woman would fuck a hot man in a heartbeat, without him having to say shit or coming up with dumbass DHVs etc. A hot man can pull out with any behavior he wants. He will very rarely be needy, because his physical cues will betray his alpha personality before he opens his fucking mouth.
Don’t believe me?? Try to imagine a typical short guy with a fucked up face, squeaky voice, shitty bone composition with small ribcage, narrow shoulder and flat chest coming up with all this shit. By fucked up face I obviously mean not what the mainstream phaggotry means and you are probably picturing right now. Fucked up face means a face with no evidence of T exposure: big beta eyes with exposure of eyelids, no browbone prominency, narrow palate, tongue and jawbone, lack of horizontal projection of Cheeks and Jaw, both on the lateral and the sagittal view. Gay pubic beard that starts from the neck, showing how the maxillofacial never migrated down to the neck, large flappy ears, showing how the Growth Hormone targeted cartilage instead of having the co-adjuvant effect of testosterone on bones, bite problems and a general looking convex face on the coronal view.
If this manosphere shit helped anybody, it would already be long dead since everything about how to DHV etc. has already been written.
The only legit tip is on forgetting about women, or all that aloof shit, since you have better stuff to think about. But that only morphs you in a bitter MGTOW faggot.
tl;dr You are either beta or alpha in life, and can’t change it with all your tryhard shit.
oh yeah, don’t fucking dare to say that you are not following all this advice shit because you can’t get laid. That’s the only reason. It’s not because you are following a higher pursuit of things or all that spiritual shit. If that’s true, that’s because you forced yourself to become so in fooling yourself it’s gonna be the right mentality to get laid.
The truth is that HOT MEN CAN COME UP WITH ALL THE SHIT WRITTEN IN THE OP AND STILL BE LUSTED AFTER FROM WOMEN, phags
Thanks captain obvious. We already know 99% of us are consider ugly or average by all American women. Thats so nice of you to point that out. Yes, a lot of us dont get laid. So what Im telling you is that YOU and the HOT GUY that does get laid are the fucking faggots. Now wutcha gotta say?
So to our erstwhile friend agentfocker here, getting laid is the be-all end-all of his existence. The only reason for self improvement, according to his superior intellect, is to be able to get laid. What are you, like, 12? If you cannot see past your own dick then that’s just your own stupidity. But don’t you dare come here and insult folks with your asinine 12 year old philosophies. One should not waste time arguing what a good man should be; instead he should just be one. The knowledge and virtue that one gathers should be for the benefit of all, and not just to get laid.
ofc,
I want to hear your own reason for why you are into self-help, mostly why you read the manosphere, other than:
-you are not getting laid
-you feel the beta in your ltr
-you feel like an unrespected cunt by your peers
Wrong. I do not know how old you are, boy, but your reasoning skills leave much to be desired. My reasons are my own; as the Couplets of the Law say “For it is Meet that the Old Teach the Young/the Way of the Lance and the Bow.” Once again you betray your immaturity through your insistence on coarse talk and sexual references. The Manosphere has much to commend itself. The fact that men can gather and discuss issues and topics among other men, without some feminist harridan shrieking epithets at them is reason enough to be here. What are your reasons for being here? Judging by your screes, it appears as if you are angry, and being confronted by the truth makes you even angrier. Let go of your anger. The first step on the path to red pill awareness is to understand that being angry is counterproductive and plays right into the hands of those who seek to shut us up. Educate yourself; Listen to those who know.
mr. edge…. chasing pussy and catching pussy makes a man feel good about himself in a pure and primordial way, like nothing else can…. so generally speaking if you take care of that side of your life… the rest tends to fall into place….
a man that has a woman submissive to him and is nailing her horny cunt everyday, has a smile on his face and people sense that…. and do things for him they don’t do for the nerd that’s learning java programming and beating off every night…
Projection everywhere!
This twit agentfocker sounds like another retribution-seeking feminist troll. What article was it? Fat Shaming week? Tranny recognition?
WHY YOU ARE SO FUCKING FAGGOT WITH YOUR MENTAL MASTURBATIONS
I’LL LEAVE THE JUDGEMENT2 TO YOUR HUMAN PERCEPTIONS:
http://i46.tinypic.com/24nnxqv.jpg
THIS GUY IS GOING SUUUURELY TO BE AN ALPHA WITH ALL OUR FAKE IT TIL YOU MAKE IT UH?
OHHHH ALSO THIS GUY DOESN’T JOKE
http://i.imgur.com/nb7aF.jpg
WHILE THIS GUY OBVIOUSLY HAS IT SOOO HARD IN GETTING PUSSY IF HE ACTS LIKE AN UNCONFIDENT BETA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1xz41JJaH1rn6umyo1_400.jpg
“Hot men”? No way a man says that. After reading that I plugged your longer comment above into an online gender text analyser, and it came to the conclusion that it was written by a female. Not scientifically certain perhaps, but Im going to call it – you’re a Feminist troll. Maybe if you lose some weight and learn to act feminine you will be able to actually attract a decent man and lose all this hate you have.
Very true. I thought the exact same when reading this dyke bitches posts. Little “agentfocker” is without a doubt a bitch. Not a single thing she said sounded like anything a man would say.
And what was with all the technical terms like a Facal Reconstructive Surgeon would use? I thought the same thing. Feminist troll retribution. Guess we will be reading a lot of their swill here in the future.
Good call. “Agentfocker” is clearly a female because only a woman would be enraged by the idea of men improving their sexual success rate beyond their genetic predisposition. Women want to be able to rely on genetic indicators without being manipulated by behavioral traits that can be learned and practiced. Only a woman would resent men for presuming to elevate their assigned position on the sexual scale. They see it as an act of defiance of the superior power of female sexual selectivity.
Are the Adam Lanzas of the world going to become pussy magnets because of Game? No, of course not. There’s a genetic Omega threshold beyond which no amount of training is going to help. But a lot of men can be greatly improved with a few simple adjustments, just like a lot of women can improve their sexual desirability with a few female tricks of the trade — hair, clothes, make-up, demeanor, etc. There are pigs that no amount of lipstick can improve, but 90% of men and women have room for improvement.
Seems like a lot of the “Hot Men” end up getting SRS and becoming females. Wonder why that is?
If I understand what you’re saying, it is that alpha/beta-dom is essentially determined by genetics and can’t be changed. Correct?
Whether or not that is true, I believe that to be pragmatic…
Hm.
There is a school of thought out there that believes that things should be judged on their utility, primarily. I like to call this pragmatism (but it’s probably the wrong word).
So whether or not, ultimately, genes determine alpha/beta-dom. Putting that question aside, the real question is: *insert useful question here*.
In other words, it is simply not useful or pragmatic to ask the questions that you are begging, simply because it does not better anyone’s lives. Analyzing this website’s content based on its utility, I would say that it has been immensely helpful in bettering a lot of people’s lives, whether it be in “getting laid” or just developing innately masculine traits.
Peace.
that’s exactly the point,
there is absolutely nothing pragmatic that you can take from mental masturbation in these sites, apart from some intellectual relax, just like reading a good book or a good novel.
if i write down how to make a fire, or build a spear so you can better hunt…
sure it’s mental masturbation until you actually go hunting….
the same can be said for any form of educative communication….
which puts us all back in the trees with the monkeys…
anyone for a banana and a dry hump ?
Youre like a charicature of one of those abusive dads who picks on his son from a 1990s teen movie. You know, one of those ones dropped into popular culture by Feminists to demonize masculinity, whose manhood seems to be defined solely by putting everyone else’s manhood down. By calling them gay for example. Continually. Get some new material there by the way – vary it up a bit, keep it fresh.
I’m pretty sure this is exactly how many Feminists think of masculinity, which is why I’m guessing that you’re a Feminist troll trying to sabotage this particular section of the manosphere. Even if I’m wrong about that though, and you really are like this in real life, I still think you should be ignored or mocked like a troll. Your “Cant change yourself, don’t try, give up” message is the very antithesis of masculinity.
WHY YOU ARE SO FUCKING FAGGOT WITH YOUR MENTAL MASTURBATIONS
I’LL LEAVE THE JUDGEMENT TO YOUR HUMAN PERCEPTIONS:
http://i46.tinypic.com/24nnxqv.jpg
THIS GUY IS GOING SUUUURELY TO BE AN ALPHA WITH ALL OUR FAKE IT TIL YOU MAKE IT UH?
OHHHH ALSO THIS GUY DOESN’T JOKE
http://i.imgur.com/nb7aF.jpg
WHILE THIS GUY OBVIOUSLY HAS IT SOOO HARD IN GETTING PUSSY IF HE ACTS LIKE AN UNCONFIDENT BETA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1xz41JJaH1rn6umyo1_400.jpg
Yeah, couldn’t be bothered to read that. Fuck off back to Jezebel, and don’t let the door hit you in your fat ass on the way out.
The first two have all the attributes of the Synagogue of Satan, just like you: receding chin, hook nose, pop eyes, NO EARLOBES. The bangs cover the sloping foreheads. The third one is a true Cro Magnon or White man.
So I was born an alpha, and I’m not resting on my laurels. What do you say now?
it’s because you are actually a beta but your mind always tricked you into thinking you are alpha so that you couldn’t commit suicide and help you go on in life and provide for the alpha and the women who will cuckold you everyday for some legit sperm.
REDPILL: ALPHAS DON’T GO ON THESE WEBSITES
I might agree with you if I went out of my way to find a site like this.
So a natural has an advantage over a learned individual? Shit the bed, this is revolutionary knowledge.
There are more than a few guys I know with physical alpha characteristics that get laid way too infrequently, get walked on by their women, dont stand up to their bosses and are just plain embarrassing. Their confidence is a joke – this kind of article can help them.
WTF? You sound like some feminist facial reconstructive surgeon. So you basically just told us either we were born with Davinci perfect symmetry in our looks or we all may as well commit suicide. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
He’s from The Misc.
A core belief from there is that the only thing that matters in terms of hooking up is looks. It’s insane and hardcore projection.
There are a small minority of guys that can pull based solely on looks and that’s what The Misc admires and wants to be apart of but it’s just fucking dumb. Facial aesthetics can’t be worked out into Brad Pitt. There is no exercise to make your face more attractive rather than losing weight.
They are missing the forest for the trees. Any core attribute of attraction can get pussy if it’s high enough from the normal simps. Millionaires smash because of money, Male Models due to looks, Rockstars from social status. Those people represent such a small proportion of guys that to hedge your bets on this is akin to playing the lottery to pay your bills.
Also looks has the be the worst one to worship because you most of it is having an inborn attractive face and being in shape. You can bust your ass for money or join a hobby that attracts groups and really work at it to get pussy that way. Weight lifting really doesn’t make girls drool unless you are completely jacked, they really don’t seem to care between skinny to lean muscular. Just don’t get fat.
It seems like my spaces aren’t working.
Is there some way to do this that I’m not aware of?
OF COURSE YOU UGLY PHAGS
HERE IS THE LIVING PROOF OF WHY YOU ARE SO FUCKING FAGGOT WITH YOUR MENTAL MASTURBATIONS
I’LL LEAVE THE JUDGEMENT TO YOUR HUMAN PERCEPTIONS:
http://i46.tinypic.com/24nnxqv.jpg
THIS GUY IS GOING SUUUURELY TO BE AN ALPHA WITH ALL OUR FAKE IT TIL YOU MAKE IT UH?
OHHHH ALSO THIS GUY DOESN’T JOKE
http://i.imgur.com/nb7aF.jpg
WHILE THIS GUY OBVIOUSLY HAS IT SOOO HARD IN GETTING PUSSY IF HE ACTS LIKE AN UNCONFIDENT BETA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1xz41JJaH1rn6umyo1_400.jpg
Really good point. Indeed the very core of masculine virtue is none other than initiative, vigilance, and exertion. Not surprisingly this is one of the core virtues of Buddhism. Although appamada (diligence, earnestness, non-laxity) is commonly said to be the greatest of all virtues, such that the Buddha goes on to say that all virtues literally converge on diligence, the close cousin of appamada; viriya, is also given much attention.
In fact viriya literally means: “state of a strong man”.
Buddhism is actually a very masculine religion, as it often touts discipline, action and exertion as being essential to the Buddhist path. In fact the Buddha listed four paths to power: zealousness, exertion, will-power and investigation.
Ironically there is a story of a particular female devotee of Gotama who practices her “manly mind” and ends up being reborn as a male deva (deity), she then scolds the monks who were born in a lower station as female servants.
That’s my Buddhist plug for the day.
just cuz ancient history treats women like shit doesn’t mean everyone should in the modern world???? the world changes?????????????? move the fuck on?????????????????????????????????????
This article is excellent and true “red pill” philosophy for men.
I wished the manosphere was more like this and less about cornholing drunk sluts.
Notches are easy. Being a man in a feminist world is much more difficult than racking up notches.
how many cornholes does it take until you have cornholed the cornhole ?
Several things are required to truly be a man.
Some of those things are:
violence-both given and received
combat-either street or battlefield-call of duty does not count
life or death adversity
struggle
self sufficiency
pro creation and the nurturing of progeny
The typical modern man has none of these things. Most modern men consider watching football, swilling beer,playing video games with other pussies, and banging 300 cock cum buckets manly. I do not.
you don’t have to be violent to be a man…. look at what some futures traders get up to on a daily basis… buddy of mine lost more than a million one morning in soy bean contracts… he shrugged and held the position, by the next evening he’d take back the million and made $800k on top…. that takes balls… big brass balls…..
I never said you had to be violent but it is impossible for a MAN to live his life without dishing some of it out. IMPOSSIBLE.
Being brave with money is bullshit to me. That is risk vs reward. How would that man react to being carjacked? or getting busted in the mouth and losing some teeth?
I’m not saying your buddy is a squishy pussy but making money sitting in front of a computer hardly counts as “big brass balls”.
you watch too many movies mate…. it’s not glamor or manly having someone shove a gun in your face… i have two friends that were car jacked… fucking nasty experience… nothing more to say… you think you are going to pull a Steven Segal … you’re not… you’re going to get a broken nose before you even realise what is going on and spend an hour or two of your life, with a 9mm in your mouth fucking petrified…. and then you’ll get dumped on the city limits broken and beaten and shaking in your shoes….
a friend of mine, super alpha who runs several bars and has a soft harem of a half dozen girls, was kidnapped and held to ransom… after they finished emptying his bank accounts at gun point, broken nose, tied to a chair… they then used his blackberry to phone everyone in his contacts and demand money… while that was going on, a guy was shot in front of him, one in the head… dead… and he was kept for 4 days tied to chair, no bathroom breaks, food or water for the best part of a week, being pistol whipped and threatened until his friends (myself included) had a whip round and got enough money together to get him released…
i don’t think that experience made him a man… i think it made him fucking shaken up and wishing he had avoided the situation that got him kidnapped in the first place…..
That’s weakness talking. “Don’t fight them, don’t resist them, they’ll beat you up…”
I disagree with that. If you’re put in a position where you have to fight, it doesn’t matter if you are incapable of beating them up. What matters is that you put up a fight.
I knew a guy who was a pretty small and scrawny dude, but he had balls. Once, he got in an altercation with a big ‘tough guy’. The tough guy told him that he’d kill him. The scrawny guy told him that if he was killed he’d at least land the tough guy in a hospital.
The tough guy was amazed at this dude’s balls and totally changed his demeanor. They later shook hands and became friends.
Your buddy acted like a rape victim. He just curled up and waited to die.
You guys paid a ransom? Why no police? Your buddy a drug dealer so you guys were scared to call police?
It is hard for some people to believe but I would rather die in the street than beg for my life.
I dont know what country you guys are in but you and your story sound retarded. Anyone knows that the kidnappers would have just as soon taking the money you and your friends rounded up and still capped your pal and dumped his body in a back alley. If he lives in a 3rd world country then he should know about paying off local police and politicians and having bodyguards etc. Being a man isnt about fighting skills lol, any street thug with a gun will put you in the grave in a heartbeat. Its about having street smarts and being aware. The muscles are for showing off at the bar thats all. I call bullshit on your story.
“awakened” ha ha
“awakened” ha ha
they tied him to a fucking chair??? what the fuck else was he supposed to do??? plus just b/c they’re telling this story doesn’t mean they were present for it ya dumbass
plus wtf is wrong with you, insinuating that rape victims are weak. i really do not understand why someone is immediately weak if they r put into a situation they have no control over??? where is the logic in that? it’s either shut up or fucking die. is death preferable just b/c you put up a fight? that’s moronic
the fucking weakness of some of you metro’s is disgusting. You should be ashamed.
Would you just get butt fucked in prison or would you fight back? Or just lay there and enjoy it? That was the rape reference moron. I forget that the majority of humanoids are too fucking stupid to actually understand the written word and need spoon fed.
So to you it is do as your told “or die”? The difference between guys like you and guys like me is that to me some things are worse than death.
I know. It is a strange concept for cubicle dwellers to understand.
I’d rephrase ‘violence’ as ‘being ready for violence’. In my mind, a man doesn’t go out looking to start fights, but doesn’t shirk away from them if the necessity arises. Agree with everything else.
You stated,
“If you’re put in a position where you have to fight, it doesn’t matter if you are incapable of beating them up. What matters is that you put up a fight.”
Exactly my point. Answer violence with violence.
Getting punched in the face is nothing. Not fighting back is everything.
btw your post is spot on
It is just an ability to defend one self. Being a man is not synonymous with being violent. If you have an aggressive and threatening vibe, then you will not get very far in life.
Train hard, eat healthy and be prepared to hit back, but only if provoked.
Real men don’t start fights, we finish them
Great!
Very well written, sir! This site needs more articles of this caliber.
Excellent article.
And exactly correct.
Feminists have already claimed all the space available in the victimhood aisle, plus a lot of extra space. Males that jump on that bandwagon, either claiming to be victims themselves, or facilitating female victimhood status (for example, the police enforcing mandatory arrest “laws), are not men. They are Jello.
There are very few victims on this planet. The planet is part of the universe and the laws of physics dictate without negotiation. A man is born with free will into this natural environment and has the choice to live life by his own will or run to the shadows of pathetic subservience.
No man should ever let another rule over him. Not in any form. Else, he is not a man, but an infant.
Taleb in The Bed of Procrustes says: “the opposite of manliness isn’t cowardice; it’s technology.”
So chimps are the most manly men in existence?
Technology is what makes men men. Not hiding behind technology, mind you, but using it to enhance our natural capabilities. The development of technology itself is a very masculine thing as it was almost entirely done by males throughout history.
The drawback of technology is that it is being used to compensate for weakness rather than fixing the weakness. Subsituting machinery for muscle for example. Leading to an atrophy of muscle.
It really depends on the technology.
Glasses for example compensates for the shortfall of vision. But doesn’t fix the root cause of the weakness.
You’ll have to be more specific. What type of machinery are you referring to? There are lots of machines that ‘substitute for muscle’ but are absolutely necessary for modern life, such as cars or mechanical cranes. A man cannot lift as much as a crane can, no matter how big he is.
Having muscle is important. I work out a lot. But what ultimately makes men is not their amount of muscle, but their courage and their wit. There ARE technologies that make us cowardly and stupid. They are the evil ones. But putting all of technology under that banner is not a very enlightened thing to do.
Really? A skilled programmer / hacker / anon could mess your life up far more than some tough alpha male that pumps a little iron 3 days a week. How about the men that control whether you get a loan? Or a raise? See, this is what people and especially women dont realize. Power is intelligence and cunning, not clueless pretty boys with waxed eyebrows and big biceps. For example look at those that brought you and your family to your knees in 2008 with subprime financial meltdown. They made a fortune and have tripled their wealth since then. Meanwhile you are still digging out of your hole with your 9-5 cubicle job. Think about what power and strength and being a man is all about. Its not about being the little expendable foot soldier cannon fodder. Its about being the General.
So, you’re saying that the criminal gang known as banksters are the manliest men on Earth? We know what tribe you are from.
An etymology of the latin words “vir” (man) and virtus (a word, than can’t be translated since it implies many different qualities associated with manliness such as courage, natural authority, physical strength but also wisdom and prudence). The is a very famous dispute between Caesar and Cato in which they argue about what virtus actually means. It can be found in Sallusts’ catilinae.
*First sentence: … would have belonged in such an article.
It’s interesting how the natural tendancy of people is to blame poor results away from the self. Coincidently, all good results are a direct result of our selves. We are quite the proud species and we truly are all at the center of our own universes.
The biggest sin I can think of is to do nothing and remain a victim after something bad has happened. Even small steps toward independence are admirable.
Did your identity get stolen and all money robbed? Start saving again, take proper precautions.
Did you lose your job? Take your skill set and find something new to do.
Is your wife divorcing you and taking everything? Start taking steps toward rebuilding your life.
Do you have cancer? Do what you can and enjoy your time on Earth.
Is it too hard to get laid due to feminism and general bitchy-ness of younger women? Improve inner game, read ROK and other resources, eliminate fear of rejection.
Yes, things occur which are out of control but doing NOTHING is the cardinal sin. What would you do if a tornado came in and blew away everything you own? You TAKE THE LOSS and MOVE FORWARD. Anything else is certainly unmanly.
so, feeling sadness or depression or remorse or guilt or shame or any reasonable and logical reaction to huge loss or trauma is immediately unmanly? chemical processes in the brain that are out of anyone’s control that trigger such emotional responses are unmanly? how the fuck does that make any sense at all
To remain in depression. Not be, remain, is sinful.
This is a well-written article, and one that is important to internalize. I’m sure I will be considering it next time I want to bitch and whine about something.
oh, like how women don’t like you or how they’re sluts or how they don’t want to serve you????????? LOL!!!
You said it best – Being A Victim Is The Opposite Of Manliness.
Being a man is, and always has been, about doing what you want and being willing to pay the price for it.
“Being a man is, and always has been, about doing what you want and being willing to pay the price for it.”
Does this mean that a woman who does what she wants and is willing to pay the price for it is a man? I don’t think your definition is a good one here. Would anyone be interested in finding a real definition to what is means to be a man?
You said it best – Being A Victim Is The Opposite Of Manliness.
Being a man is, and always has been, about doing what you want and being willing to pay the price for it.
“The question “What does it mean to be a man?” is timeless, and I’m sure I couldn’t begin to answer it in one short post.”
I had a shot at it a while ago, I think we’re on the same page.
Definitely. I think that every ROK article is adding to the discussion “what does it mean to be a man?” It is a deep, all important question.
Thanks. ROK is part of the quest to define/rediscover masculinity. Every post is an opportunity. And yes, control is very important. “Victim” implies a lack of control.
Excellent excellent piece.
“These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who
did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the
tunnel, the flame of Wyatt’s Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.” –Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” end of Part II’s Chapter VIII, “The Moratorium on Brains.”
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/that-winston-tunnel-scene-in-full.html
Great post.
Dudes don’t wear pink shirts
Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the Gods?
Where’s the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
I need a hero, I’m holding out for a hero
‘Til the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
Heroes Come In All Shapes and Sizes
(Bonnie Tyler – Holding Out For A Hero)
http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2013/07/heroes-come-in-all-shapes-and-sizes.html
LOLLL. ITS AGENTFOCKERS HUBBY!!
Great point about victim hood. I find that victim mentality and entitlement mentality are two of the most unattractive and sadly most common qualities in our society.
so… men thinking they are entitled to sex and entitled to the subservience of women is fine? or whining about women not wanting them and playing the victim, that is also fine? where is the logic here
This article is absolutley spot on. For me, John Steinbeck defined exactly what manliness was, in “The grapes of wrath”.
The people came out of their houses and smelled the hot stinging air and covered their noses from it. And the children came out of the houses, but they did not run or shout as they would have done after a rain. Men stood by their fences and looked at the ruined corn, drying fast now, only a little green showing through the film of dust. The men were silent and they did not move often. And the women came out of the houses to stand beside their men—to feel whether this time the men would break. The women studied the men’s faces secretly, for the corn could go, as long as something else remained. The children stood near by, drawing figures in the dust with bare toes, and
the children sent exploring senses out to see whether men and women would break.
The children peeked at the faces of the men and women, and then drew careful lines in the dust with their toes. Horses came to the watering troughs and nuzzled the water to clear the surface dust. After a while the faces of the watching men lost their bemused perplexity and became hard and angry and resistant. Then the women knew that they were safe and that there was no break. Then they asked, What’ll we do? And the men replied, I don’t know. But it was all right. The women knew it was all right, and the watching children knew it was all right. Women and children knew deep in themselves that no misfortune was too great to bear if their men were whole.
I didn’t remember that partof GOR but that is excellent.
Mjolnir
Personally, I believe it’s as important to know what you don’t want as it is to know what you want. Those are boundaries, the borders we choose to live our life within. And based upon what I know about human nature – and where our society is today – it’s almost easier to “teach” someone how not to do something or how not to act, than it is to guide them done the correct path. The great American mindset is more intune with the negative, than the positive – teaching has to accept that and utilize it as a tool.
Thanks for the article – hope you write more along this theme.
Excellent essay. Best one on this site so far.
To those who believe American men are victims of viciously picky American women, first ask, why do modern women act the way they do? Because we, MEN, are no longer man enough to stop them from getting away with it!
NEWS FLASH: men
invented feminism! William Godwin, Marquis Donatien de Sade and Pierre
Choderlos de Laclos are the precursors of modern feminism. Mary
Woolstonecraft would never have become influential without her husband Godwin,
and even Simone de Beauvoir would probably never have been so widely
read had the public not mistakenly assumed that her moronic book was
written by her “open partner,” Jean-Paul Sartre.
Here’s the truth: feminism is merely an extension of libertinism, the complete breaking apart of sexual mores and taboos. The goal, of course, of the pure libertine is to break women from the constraints (read: protection) of fathers and husbands, so that they will be more likely to succumb to dubious charms (read: will be easier to abuse).
And THIS, gentlemen, is the answer to those who do not understand why a man seeking to rise above the blue world cannot “pursue sex with hoes at pool parties.” Just as we cannot beat the effeminization wave if we allow give ourselves up to the victim mentality, we will never beat back its parent philosophy, libertinism, in openly embracing its false goods. I am not saying a real and decent man will never succumb to individual temptations, but it is NOT a commendably masculine practice to go “hunting” for a “quick bang.”
But there’s more. The libertine roots of feminism also provide the answer to feminists’ cries of a “rape culture.” Yes, there IS a rape culture in our modern society, and it is the conscious doing of feminists’ own libertine enablers. It is NOT the fruit of half-conscious beer-soaked and clearly tongue-in-cheek blathering between buddies.
okay first of all the marquis de sade was a piece of shit and not a feminist at all??? he definitely raped and murdered a shitload of women why the fuck would you think that makes him a feminist. secondly how can you argue that articles like this or “blathering between buddies” doesn’t promote rape culture when this entire article is about being violent and treating victims and women like they are trash??????? that’s literally what rapists do??????? what the actual fuck
You apparently read a different article
excellent article
Aces, deuces and one-eyed faces with this one. Simply incisive and clearly written.
give us an example of one of these famous male “victims”
Trayvon Martin comes to mind.
really. a fucking fourteen year old black kid. you’re going to demonize him for being a “victim” when some fat, sweaty white dude fucking shot him. what would have been a “manly” way to react to that situation???
Correction:
A 17 year old nigger killed by a fat spic.
You look like a fine example.
An hopeless one.
Very sharp post. Thanks to the “victim mentality” we’ve been subject to the incessant ideology of equalism that by it’s definition will never be satisfied, since it’s impossible to have even roughly “equal” resources, opportunities, outcomes, etc. for people, other than death I suppose. On the plus side, if you embrace and develop your masculinity you’ll stand in stark contrast to the legions of manboobs out there, and despite feminist protestations, women want masculine men.
most women i know don’t want violent, insecure assholes so… nah
How many have you known ? Your mother and … hmm ?
Go be a mangina somewhere else.
“Mjolnir despises multiculturalism” <— what does that exactly mean ?
It means I believe that homogenous societies are the strongest societies, and that the diversity that is being forced upon us will inevitably lead to the death of Western Civilization.
I don’t know what classes you took during high school, but Western Civilization is multicultural, it has been for a long time, kinda for like 2000 years or so.
If you still believe everything you learned in high school, you should consider taking the red pill.
Western civilization has never been multicultural. No civilization has ever been multicultural. The closest is the Ottoman Empire, which was more cultural flavour subjugated under 1 dominant culture. Multiculturalism does not exist, it is instead a euphemistic word for invasion by non-whites. So tell me, have Western countries ever been under threat of becoming minorities in their own nations, or having their legitimate (superior, as you know, the people the nations are for?) rights trampled in favour of kotowing to various foreign nations?
um white europeans invaded america and killed 95% of the advanced civilizations that were already here??????????? if anyone is invaders it’s white people. plus white people have distinct cultures (germans are vastly different from brits, for example) so your argument literally makes no fucking sense??? white isn’t some hive-mind single culture, there’s a fuckload of intricacy that your Nazism doesn’t cover so ok lol multiculturalism doesn’t exist haha
um white europeans invaded america and killed 95% of the advanced civilizations that were already here??????????? if anyone is invaders it’s white people. plus white people have distinct cultures (germans are vastly different from brits, for example) so your argument literally makes no fucking sense??? white isn’t some hive-mind single culture, there’s a fuckload of intricacy that your Nazism doesn’t cover so ok lol multiculturalism doesn’t exist haha
USA has been multicultural since its birth.
Doesnt look “the weakest society” around to me.
You might have confused this site with Stormfront.
I guess I don’t understand how that makes sense when Western society has had multiculturalism for quite some time ? So then you don’t believe in multicultural sexual exchanges, relationships, marriages etc. ? I don’t think it’s being “forced” per-say however it is being broadcasted more. The reason I ask is because I’d say the majority of my relationships/sexual experiences were multicultural. I think there are certain ways that it can work.
To hell with your archaic notions of masculinity.
To hell with your new notions of male subserviency.
Thank you, Mjolnir, for the best article on this website. It is too bad that MRAs have turned into basically male versions of feminists with victim complexes, pushing equality and having essentially the same values (multiculturalism is good, homophobia is bad etc.)
The archaic notion of masculinity is the only one that exists. The modern version is a destruction and subversion of that notion. After all, what has that masculinity been replaced with? A void at best, actual femininity at worst. Masculinity is power and authority, the instinct and ability to DO, not whine.
lol and yet there are sooooo many articles on this website whining about how women don’t want you or how they’re sluts or how “fat ugly feminists” are ruining all our fun… that’s so hypocritical and hilarious hahaha jesus fucking christ
lol and yet there are sooooo many articles on this website whining about how women don’t want you or how they’re sluts or how “fat ugly feminists” are ruining all our fun… that’s so hypocritical and hilarious hahaha jesus fucking christ
you write like a member of the fucking klan. way to take cracked.com’s format and turn it into the dumbest shit imaginable. I hope every contributor gets the worst kind of STD’s and then the whole lot of you should fling yourselves into the fucking sun. the world would be better for it.
this site isn’t good enough to be called fucking clown shoes.
you write like a member of the fucking klan. way to take cracked.com’s format and turn it into the dumbest shit imaginable. I hope every contributor gets the worst kind of STD’s and then the whole lot of you should fling yourselves into the fucking sun. the world would be better for it.
this site isn’t good enough to be called fucking clown shoes.
just here to gay up the place
just here to gay up the place
i’m just here to gay up the place
Ever read “Holocaust Industry” by Norman Finkelstein?! That’s exactly the blueprint professional feminists follow.
Ironic that you guys on this site write up this article that details why you shouldn’t be a whining victim and yet half of your articles are just one of the authors being a petulant whiner.
-A woman doesn’t fit your standard for how to act? “Weeeehhhhhh she’s a slut!”
-A man isn’t living up to the “traditional” standard of masculinity? “Weeehhhhh badass masculinity is dead!!” (Which is ridiculous by the way; do your research for a few fucking minutes and you’d learn that what has been defined as masculine and what has been defined as feminine has changed throughout societies and times. Elementary.)
-A gay person is confidently living their own life? “Weeehhhh they’re taking rights away from us and starting the downfall of humanity!!”
Stop whining and for once in your pitiful life accept that not everyone is going to act as you want them to. If you’re a very masculine person, awesome! Go be masculine. But when you sit there on a privileged, ignorant high horse shouting down orders about how society and its individuals need to behave to please you and your code, then your masculinity is broken and, yeah, whiny. Accept people as they are and you’ll probably be a lot happier and a lot less pitiful.
yeah lol seriously! all of the commenters and authors of these articles have the biggest victim complexes i’ve ever seen like wtf i cannot believe how funny this is hahahha
You’re confused, the Victim Headquarter is the Women Studies course where you studied to become a self-hating mangina! ;-P
Another feminist drone dancing.
Keep it up: more visits more money! 😉 😉
actually, that’s only true if they click on the ads on this shitty site.
We all know that most of you guys want to bend down and be victimized by some cock. Just own up to it!! 😀
You don’t have class.
“returnofkings” is probably the most self-flattering url I have ever seen. “Kings”? You people are too fucking funny.
Keep dancing puppets, while we make money on your hatred! 😉 😉
Keep dancing puppets, while we make money on your hatred! 😉 😉
Keep dancing puppets, while we make money on your hatred! 😉 😉
Keep dancing puppets, while we make money on your hatred! 😉 😉
You come across as being Anti-Hitler, are you ?
Yeah, men are definitely the victims of society when we control the majority of the government and dominate the ownership and composition of media.
Hard work. Never heard of it ?
And no: gender quotas are NOT hard work…
Hard work. Never heard of it ?
And no: gender quotas are NOT hard work…
Hard work. Never heard of it ?
And no: gender quotas are NOT hard work…
Hard work. Never heard of it ?
And no: gender quotas are NOT hard work…
How the fuck do “we” dominate the media and government? The whole system is for the most part a massive transfer of resources from men to women… and do you even follow the mainstream media? It’s entirely misandric, men don’t matter, men are only good for resources, men are victimizers, men are disposable etc. etc. Get a grip please
I want manly men to pound my gay ass
gay
gays
yes gay
no hetero all gay
gayyyyyyys have nice dicks
Who the fuck writes these articles?
someone who has never been laid.
Mjolnir is a good name for the author because he’s such a fucking tool.
Well said, Larry.
Read this article. I call “bullshit” on it.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/raped-by-a-woman/
I bet the writers and people on this website are old grumpy men who have nothing better for themselves than to oppress and bully people and pretend they are high standard just to validate themselves.
the opposite of victim is aggressor, so i’m gonna take this as license to beat/kill a bunch of bitches ha ha right guys
Can the moderator just delete some stupid pics from the mangina trolls? There would be no infringement of speech violated, I presume?
As someone else put it:
“It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
You see, the problem I have with this article, and the article of their kind on this site, is that they try to define men as some entirely different species, complete with their own rituals and lives which cannot overlap with women. It’s a kick in the balls for every man who isn’t a knuckle dragging cock puppet.
Being a man is about being a human. Gender is only important in reproduction. Being ‘manly’ is about as important as being feminine, it matters if it matters to you, but don’t try to force it on everyone. Like your dick, keep it in your pants unless otherwise instructed.
This attack against the “victim” mentality is abhorent. Some men are not strong, and it falls to us men to help them. That is what being a man is all about, not scorning the weak, but supporting them, as our fellow brothers. We are men not because we have all these attributes which seperate us from women (God forbid we might bear some similarity to the other half of our species, I mean, how confusion is it when you can’t tell a person’s gender, and we wouldn’t want to be gay, because then we’d be good at dancing!) But because we are strong in face of adversity, which includes adversity against others. We stand up for what is right.