The other sex

[Everdarkgreen]

Having not so much experience myself, I ask the users here to share their ideas on relations with the other sex. I noticed the "Is chivalry dead?" thread and had a few thoughts of my own in addition.

First of all, as a student going into my second year of university, I feel terribly uncomfortable with all of the underlying liberal bullshit that permeates the curriculum. And as a confused student, I decided that it might be, well.. interesting, if not simply amusing, to take a woman's course (ie. feminism 101). Why I decided that was a good idea, I'm still not sure. Part of it was perhaps thinking of all the women I could potentially meet who would be gullible and easily led to believe that I was so liberal and open to equality like they were. Of course, I knew that was a load of crap. But I was bored and needed an elective course, so I figured the worse that would happen was that I'd get an easy grade if I just pandered to what the professor wanted the class to believe.

In short, it was full of crap. First we discussed a Henrik Ibsen play where a desperate women escapes her oppressive, abusive husband and takes her children alongside in order to pursue an education she has longed for. Issues discussed were the roles and treatment of women in society in the 19th century as well as the ethical justification in taking the children away from their father. The ideas focused on were basically that women did not have many choices at the time and were forced to live a life of servitude and lost dreams where they'd always come second to the man, constantly living in their domestic sphere while the man would encompass the whole breadth of the social, political and financial spheres of existence. While it was certainly acknowledged that women enabled themselves to continue to put up with this treatment, it was also said that they did have a choice of integrity that would involve fighting for their rights that most of the time they did not choose.

As the class progressed, the increasing amount of opportunities for women to come out of their traditional roles and fight for their rights was constantly reinforced. However, throughout the apparently 'level-headed' debate, I still got the idea that modern woman lives in the constant shadow of their 'superior' or 'ruling' sex. That although so many opportunities are becoming available, women still live with the ramifications of political and social norms enabled by men in powerful postiions that live on in written word and in our collective social psyche to this day. Also mentioned were the sorts of opportunities women were starting to take on in various fields that were traditionally male dominated. You know the story - women becoming more like men.

My question is (having done some research and obviously observing the world from my own experiences), does this conclusion that women are "oppressed" hold up to the facts? From what I know, opportunities are skewed towards the advantage of men. Women do earn less for the same work (which if I remember correctly applies not to your standard unskilled labor).

As well, is it a big problem that we're pushing all this equality crap on women in specific? Because if we accept the fact that they're not equal, then one question is how/why do we reinforce that they are? Also whether this is a productive way for society to function? Is it more effective that women earn less? Are they stubborn to want more all the time? Are they collectively using a liberal agenda in the midst of an age open to liberal propaganda in order to wedge their way into a nonexistent plane of equality, unity and tolerance?  Is it a problem that women feel 'liberated' by their attempts to break out of their traditional roles? Are they abusing their biologically/psychologically predetermined potential to live their gender roles and is this in turn confusing people? Just how rigid are these roles? Is it necessarily a terrible thing if a woman makes more money than the man? etc.

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Moreso, a general question: are men more intellectually equipped on average than women? Perhaps that's obvious, but I have a debate with myself all the time and find I don't have the real fruits of evidence to back up my own claims and end up reasoning that men have their own brand of intelligence while women have their own. Perhaps it's more a relationship between reason and emotion. Is it reasonable to assume that women are endowed with more of column b? Or that this directly means they are less intelligent?

Perhaps those are useless questions and perhaps it's not clear, but I'm more interested in the social implications of the answers of those questions. How do you treat women, how does it differ to how most people do it, and how/why should others change their behaviours/thoughts regarding this?

[Veritas]

Men and women are not equal, therefore men and women should not be allowed to do the same jobs.

Men and women are equal, therefore there should be the same representation of women as men in any job.

[Everdarkgreen]

Men and women are not equal, therefore men and women should not be allowed to do the same jobs.

Men and women are equal, therefore there should be the same representation of women as men in any job.

I see what you did there.

[scourge]

Anyone but an uberfeminist understands the substantial physiological differences. There are certain trades virtually no woman will be able to keep up in: certain types of hard construction labor and intensive ground combat roles requiring sustained upper body and core muscular activity particularly in hot weather. Aptitude, inclination, and intellect have all come into question as well. Women are substantially underrepresented in engineering and sciences. The uberfeminist, after cracking a coconut with her massive silverback gorilla jaw and spitting out the shards in a clattering heap will roar about oppressive male patriarchy when instead it was evolution both encouraging us into our general roles in life and discouraging those we see who do not fit well in a poor role.

[Transcix]

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

In order to successfully attract a women, in my opinion it is advisable to refrain from treating them like a second-class citizen. Unless you are a drug dealer, and wish to be apprehended by the authorities when your women finally snaps and turns on you.

Incidentally, it might be a good idea to get to know some women (other than your mother) intimately before passing value judgments about their most essential characteristics and qualities.

Lastly, in my experience as a man, it's the women who have more trouble finding men who can engage in substantial intellectual conversation, not the other way around (although it's not a very wide disparity). I suspect from casual sociological observations on my part though that this may be different in other areas of the world, for example areas that are heavily Christian.

[Veritas]

In order to successfully attract a women, in my opinion it is advisable to refrain from treating them like a second-class citizen.

This doesn't seem true from observation - the males I notice who treat women as second-class tend to have little trouble attracting women (with some exceptions). Admittedly, they do seem to mainly attract those of a lower quality.

Lastly, in my experience as a man, it's the women who have more trouble finding men who can engage in substantial intellectual conversation, not the other way around (although it's not a very wide disparity). I suspect from casual sociological observations on my part though that this may be different in other areas of the world, for example areas that are heavily Christian.

Or perhaps men and women simply tend to prefer different kinds of discussion?

[Veritas]

Anyone but an uberfeminist understands the substantial physiological differences. There are certain trades virtually no woman will be able to keep up in... Aptitude, inclination, and intellect have all come into question as well... it was evolution both encouraging us into our general roles in life and discouraging those we see who do not fit well in a poor role.

Plato laid it all out quite clearly in the Republic.

He first reminds everyone that the only necessary difference between a man and woman is in regards to their function in breeding, though this doesn't exclude the possibility of other differences. This means, that if a man and a woman are both well suited to some other particular function, even if the function is performed almost exclusively by the one sex, they should both be directed to it.

The army is probably going to be mostly male, but if a female is well suited to it, then they should also be able to join. We should designate position only by those relevant characteristics, recognising that correlation is not causation, but also that the absence of causation does not mean absence of correlation. Hence, while gender roles are not enforced, they still form as there still exist high correlations between gender and ability/behaviour in certain respects.

[Nimbostratus]

Anyone but an uberfeminist understands the substantial physiological differences. There are certain trades virtually no woman will be able to keep up in... Aptitude, inclination, and intellect have all come into question as well... it was evolution both encouraging us into our general roles in life and discouraging those we see who do not fit well in a poor role.

Plato laid it all out quite clearly in the Republic.

He first reminds everyone that the only necessary difference between a man and woman is in regards to their function in breeding, though this doesn't exclude the possibility of other differences. This means, that if a man and a woman are both well suited to some other particular function, even if the function is performed almost exclusively by the one sex, they should both be directed to it.

The army is probably going to be mostly male, but if a female is well suited to it, then they should also be able to join. We should designate position only by those relevant characteristics, recognising that correlation is not causation, but also that the absence of causation does not mean absence of correlation. Hence, while gender roles are not enforced, they still form as there still exist high correlations between gender and ability/behaviour in certain respects.

I agree. Let women compete, if they're up to it, no need to discuss, if they're not, no need to discuss. Let's measure them, in all fields, as we measure men: by productivity.

What I hate is this: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Feminists love to apply this in everything, including gender.

[nihilnigga]

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Have you ever watched a movie like Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist then daydreamed about a hottie falling for you because you put Demilich and Averse Sefira on a mixtape? Anyway, I guess you'd want an intellectual female but those are few and often unattractive(intellect is just not what mainly attracts us about women, unfortunately) and you'll have to project a consistent self-image and a sense of intellectual domination to get them, or at least confidence masquerading as such, which seems pretty far fetched for you(though in more desperate cases, even a sense of "I agree that life sucks" might work). Pandering to the needs dumber girls can get you laid a couple of times pretty easily and that could be crucial with building up your presently non-existent confidence required to move forward.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

Feminists obviously think that women are 2nd class as well, otherwise they wouldn't be carrying on as they do.  But hey, being 2nd class/oppressed/victim is your one way ticket to power these days!

[Jim Necroslaughter]

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Pandering to the needs dumber girls can get you laid a couple of times pretty easily and that could be crucial with building up your presently non-existent confidence required to move forward.

But be careful about pandering too much, if you can find a way to challenge her, rather than agree with her constantly, this will get a girl more charged up than a yes-man.  Don't insult the girl, but if you can tease her just a little, it will show her you're not a sap and it will subtly put you in the dominant role, and her in the submissive.

[Humanicide]

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Pandering to the needs dumber girls can get you laid a couple of times pretty easily and that could be crucial with building up your presently non-existent confidence required to move forward.

But be careful about pandering too much, if you can find a way to challenge her, rather than agree with her constantly, this will get a girl more charged up than a yes-man.  Don't insult the girl, but if you can tease her just a little, it will show her you're not a sap and it will subtly put you in the dominant role, and her in the submissive.

Also be careful of those nasty VDs.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

And wear protection (if you're a pussy)

[Umbrage]

And wear protection (if you're a pussy)

Protection? You mean a gun?

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Another thing altogether is courting women. My specific question regarding that is do most of you just pander to the whims of these gullible, vacuous women or do you have a quality check where you entirely avoid those women and instead choose either the solicitude of isolation from the opposite sex or only a woman who doesn't make for an underwhelming intellectual discussion?

Have you ever watched a movie like Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist then daydreamed about a hottie falling for you because you put Demilich and Averse Sefira on a mixtape? Anyway, I guess you'd want an intellectual female but those are few and often unattractive(intellect is just not what mainly attracts us about women, unfortunately) and you'll have to project a consistent self-image and a sense of intellectual domination to get them, or at least confidence masquerading as such, which seems pretty far fetched for you(though in more desperate cases, even a sense of "I agree that life sucks" might work). Pandering to the needs dumber girls can get you laid a couple of times pretty easily and that could be crucial with building up your presently non-existent confidence required to move forward.

Most of the guys I see worshiping the game cult fail miserably at courting women. Why? Because they're failures who are so resentful at their lack of ability to successfully maintain a relationship that they want to reduce the complexities of courtship to a very easy to understand system of thought. It doesn't work, because courting isn't a game of Candy Land; there are no rules that everyone agrees to follow for the sake of your fragile ego, the dice doesn't only have six sides, and there isn't a card that you can randomly pick to introduce a rule that will save you. Why don't you get over the fact that women and the courting of them isn't a completely predictable form of life laid out for you in a series of easy to complete steps for the sake of your inability to adapt?