How true do you think the general /r9k/ outlook on modern gender

>>17729402

That's a board full of hateful fucks. Even if they stumble upon something worthwhile, you'd be better off not hanging there. Better for your sanity and personality.

and what, exactly, is r9k's outlook on modern gender dynamics?

>>17729402
thats one sexy bunny

/r9k/ are a bunch of jaded people with little knowledge of the world. They tell themselves they took "the red pill" in convincing themselves that never trying to accomplish anything is the sound, rational choice because the game is too rigged. Sweet insight there!

But seriously. You're talking about a bunch of people who cherrypick statistics and anecdotal evidence to feed into their own narrative of being eternally misunderstood victims. So smart (but lazy). So nice (but hostile). So intelligent (but unable to put together a logically sound argument).

They don't have a true outlook on anything other than their piss bottles.

>>17729426
Just the whole, like, women want a very small portion of men along the lines of what the culture tells them to want. That they're fickle and opportunistic. Women only like things that they think make them popular but have no real interests, etc. Those kinds of attitudes.

>>17729461
I would say this is certainly true for some people, but yes it is a generalization.

>>17729461
I think that's true for a lot of women but also true for a lot of men. A large amount of people in general are fickle and opportunistic.

>>17729461
Do you really think that if women, half of mankind, on a consistent basis proved to be much shittier in a variety of aspects than men, we'd have to hear about it from a handful of people?

>inb4 political correctness
Even within a long-standing historical legacy of looking down upon women there is no notion of women not having personalities or not loving men.

>>17729461
Well those are generalizations. They do apply to SOME women, but not all. The very same things you mentioned also apply to SOME men, but not all.

The important thing with dating is to get past your own insecurities so that you can actually GET TO KNOW the girl you're trying to get with. Try to be a good judge of character, so you can tell whether or not she'd be a good match for you. A lot of guys genuinely don't pay attention past physical appearance, and then they get shocked when a cruel lying whore acts like a cruel lying whore.

>>17729461

Those are perfect examples. Look how they are all ways to either insult women or victimize men. That's the attitude you get from /r9k/

They're absolutely wrong when they make generalisations and conveniently ignore the fact that men can be equally shit. You're delusional and an absolutely idiot if you buy into anything they have to say.

>>17729402

It is exaggerated, but it is also good to know /r9k point of view in order to avoid problems.

Any human relationship is subtler than the simplistic approach of /r9k

>>17729402
It's kind of like how tumblrinas are about men. A lot of them have had real and shitty experiences with people of the opposite sex, but the toxic generalizations they draw from that form an unrealistic worldview. Unlike tumblr, /r9k/ doesn't have the support of angry lesbians in prominent academia, which makes it seem more countercultural and "red pilled" but honestly it's all just the same kind of fucked up echo chamber.

Women aren't taught to "ride the cock carousel" and then settle for "beta providers" any more than men are taught "rape is cool." You can find examples of people who behave in this way, sometimes a lot of them, but it's not an intrinsic part of the gender identity.

The one thing I think /r9k/ is right about is that it's easier for a woman to get laid if all she wants to do is lose her virginity, because there are plenty of lonely dudes who just want to fuck any female body. I have enough female friends to know that that's not really an enjoyable thing. In general women get approached for sex more and they seem to be more socialized (you meet a lot fewer spergy women), so very few of them can relate to the sheer loneliness of the KHV robot experience, but their shit has its own drawbacks like old guys and pajeets constantly spamming your okc inbox with shit like "hey beautiful do i need a comdon"

>>17729507
It is actually hilarious how much /r9k/ and tumblr have in common.

>no creatures are viler than white (wo)men
>tell each other that they understand the world on a deeper level than "normal" people do
>if you disagree with them you just don't understand and have not reached their level of understanding yet
>entire culture revolving around self-pity and how the world is all wrong for not catering to your needs
>lots and lots of buzzwords

>>17729507
>>17729546
Tumblr and /r9k/ are two sides of the same coin. Both are toxic scum.

>>17729461
Well I think those are mostly wrong ideas that started from some small truths, but they were generalized, exaggerated and distorted to the point where they've become completely false.

>women want a very small portion of men
People, men and women will always want attractive people more than average Joes. This doesn't mean they can only like, love, respect and get infatuated only with ridiculously hot people, but the they will always feel more attraction towards them.

>along the lines of what the culture tells them to want
That's not true, women always liked certain traits in men. Of course culture plays a role in it, but biological impulses are more important in attraction than ideology.

>That they're fickle and opportunistic
Well this is obviously a generalization. Some women are fickle and opportunistic. Some aren't. I do agree that women tend to be more fickle and opportunistic than men, on average.

>Women only like things that they think make them popular but have no real interests
Again, that's a generalization. And again, I do think that on average women tend to put more value on what "makes them popular" (or rather, on what society dictates).

>>17729476
Well, until modern days women were generally considered "much shittier in a variety of aspects than men". That's still true for many places in the >current year<, look at the arab world for instance. Not trying to imply anything, just saying.

>>17729402
Zero. That's why they're on /r9k/ - brcause they haven't a clue.

>>17729594
>Well, until modern days women were generally considered "much shittier in a variety of aspects than men".
That was pretty much my point, that it's saying quite something that even thinking of women as weak and less intelligent and sexually not to be trusted etc women not having personalities or only caring about appearances is not among that list.

As for the other ones, I think it's pretty natural how they came to life. People tend to forget that men and women used to interact very little in terms of actually speaking/joking and not passing each other by or working together. There are many cultures worldwide where men and women were even supposed to live in separate quarters - not just Arabian ones, Greek women for example were locked up inside the house as well.

So a man who was intelligent, could read and write, had an education etc would come home to a woman who nurses a baby on her tit, literally spends all her time cleaning/doing chores (again, people tend to forget how time consuming running a household used to be before modern inventions), and knows nothing about the world let alone culture and art.

Is it really surprising that men gathered that women were kind of dumb and did not have much going on?

God I am so sick of r9k being used as this punching bag to dismiss all red pill ideologies and reasonable objections by men to society, because haha they're losers, that makes us always right.

Every post in this thread dismisses their claims as generalization and/or calls them stupid naive and lazy. Well let's take the r9k losers and replace them with jacked, intelligent dudes some of whom have already been married, you get the Red Pill subreddit. Now instead of jumping to generalization = wrong, consider that the point these guys are trying to make is that sometimes generalizations can be correct, or rather making certain assumptions about women is not only helpful in dating but absolutely essential. Then what would your opinion be /adv/?

>>17729679

>consider that the point these guys are trying to make is that sometimes generalizations can be correct, or rather making certain assumptions about women is not only helpful in dating but absolutely essential.

So, instead of getting to know a girl you want, you assume generalizations as truth and play the "numbers game" of asking girls out until you luck out and get a yes, then going on a lot of first dates until you luck out and get a second one, etc. etc.

That's dumb.

>Well let's take the r9k losers and replace them with jacked, intelligent dudes some of whom have already been married, you get the Red Pill subreddit.

What about the hate? I mean, you can't talk about r9k or the Red Pill while ignoring the vitriol and hate they spew constantly.

My posts were these: >>17729414 and >>17729478

I stand by them. They are so full of hate, so focused on being the victim, that believing their ideology damages your sense of self worth and makes you angry at the world in general and women in specific.

>>17729679
>and replace them with jacked, intelligent dudes some of whom have already been married, you get the Red Pill subreddit.
Well, we know who frequents the Red Pill subreddit guys...

But seriously, for the record, things I agree with from /r9k/:
>pointing out women's double standards and hypocrisy in dating is less accepted than the opposite
>it is much easier for a woman to get laid if she really wants to
>men are still expected to make the first move yet judged harshly for potentially not doing that great
>the dating climate has become callous in many ways, with technological developments making ghosting etc very easy and a lot of people having sex early onwards

However, I think many of the things that /r9k/ describes like women being shallow, boring etc are simply observations from the opposite sex. It is as common for women to have thoughts or fears about men being incapable of "real love", not being as interested in self development as women are and so on. It is just a lot easier to dismiss that and see it in perspective if it's your own sex and you feel more secure that these people do not represent everybody.

I also find the Red Pill subreddit (not that I've been there often, but I think often enough to have a first impression) a board full of highly unbelievable "another story of me being alpha and putting this basic bitch in her place" bragging. I find it -really- hard to believe that men who are as successful and charming as they all describe themselves to be get a lot of enjoyment out of agreeing with each other on a rather negative part of the internet where they deride and simplify the women they are attracted to and supposedly sometimes love. That to me is not something most happy, confident people do to relax in their spare time.

>>17729708
I agree that it's dumb but I don't make the rules. I wish girls would give me the time to get to know them, but that confuses my "intentions" and she, usually, assumes I'm only talking to her to get a fuck which ruins everything so no I wait until we've had a date before going into that.

Yeah they are definitely bitter, that's what you get when there's a massive community of women (feminists) telling you and the world that women's lives are worse than men's. And I bitter even before finding out about these online communities so I consider it entirely reactionary.

>>17729728
>And I bitter even before finding out about these online communities so I consider it entirely reactionary.

Yeah, they don't teach you to be bitter. They just validate and perpetuate the hate. They are an echo chamber of bitterness.

Also, admitting men have difficulties is not the same as going around saying women have it "so easy, you guys!".

You are dong the same thing you accuse the "feminists" of. You are just saying men have it harder and deserve special treatment. See the irony in that?

>>17729679
>jacked, intelligent dudes
My opinion: you guys should just date each other and stop complaining all over the Internet

>>17729713
Obviously nothing corrupts an argument like having a worldview and that is nothing specific to a gender. All I can say is after sifting through more of TRP than you I know their is genuine compassion on there for guys who are single and lonely but it comes in the form of trying to get them immediate results. That's what we all want after all, simple easy to follow step by steps instead of the clusterfuck 6d chess that modern dating is. And the alpha bragging does get to me, but not like the shit I see in real life where a guy behaves like the TRP asshole and gets women effortlessly. It's comical. But like you I have to judge according to my experiences.

>>17729743
>I know their is genuine compassion on there for guys who are single and lonely

And hate for women... don't forget the hate...

>>17729743
>the clusterfuck 6d chess that modern dating is

>"Hi, want to get coffee tomorrow at six?"
>"Sounds good!"
>[later, after coffee]
>"Want to go to the bar across the street?"
>"Sounds good!"
>If that goes well: girlfriend acquired.
>Else: repeat again with a different girl.

And I'm BAD with women.

>>17729738
>admitting men have difficulties is not the same as going around saying women have it "so easy, you guys!"
Yeah, women lack the difficulties men have in dating and have it pretty easy. Now I'm only talking dating, I absolutely concede to feminists that going for a career they will have the odds stacked against her. And some other basic talking points we've all heard. On the other hand, they do not concede shit to me. They cannot admit there is this one aspect of life where presently they are raking in gold. And we have to have these threads blaming r9k and lazy fat fucks. I just want both sides to be honest about male and female perks in society.

>>17729743
>That's what we all want after all, simple easy to follow step by steps
But it simply doesn't work like that. It's like one of those "become rich while sitting on your ass with these three quick steps".
Or have you fucked countless women yet?

Yeah for "normies" dating is also easy to follow step by step but that's because they developed an intuition for navigating the social situations around dating, which simply -are- complicated because you get lots of signs, sometimes conflicting etc. But people are ultimately built for reading and understanding other people. We can also still tell whether someone is angry with us or not after a heated conversation with flashes of aggression and calm moments in between. That's quite something. Only if you have no experience and are trying to analyze everything rationally instead of instinctively understanding whether to push or leave someone alone etc, it becomes a minefield because these things are too complicated to navigate with just your brain. Like trying to logically deduce how to tie your shoelaces - better leave it to your body or you won't be able to do it.

>where a guy behaves like the TRP asshole and gets women effortlessly
Yeah, and those women are women with issues, who are looking for a man like their daddy before he left, or who are cripplingly insecure, or fifteen, which is an issue all by itself.
The women that guys on here claim to want - women who are soft-hearted, thoughtful, only interested in a serious relationship, on the introverted side, mentally healthy etc... they are not going to drop their panties for some fratbro being obnoxious about someone he fucked.

>>17729770
>On the other hand, they do not concede shit to me.

It's all about you, isn't it?

Do you know what "cat-calling" is? Do you know what make-up is? Do you know how it feels to date as a woman?

Don't act as if your life was crap and theirs isn't. You lack sex, they are bombarded by harassment. No point in making it a pissing contest.

"Who has it worse?" is the question self-victimizing assholes ask. Ask how you can make things better, and how how others can, and share that information with respect, not hate.

Defending men doesn't make r9k or the Red Pill assholes. Being hateful and selfish when doing it makes them assholes.

>>17729402
Consider it from another viewpoint, how big is the chance that bitter social recluses who fail at life can have an opinion worth anything about social matters and life? You'd could ask some tribe in the Amazons their opinion about import laws in EU with about the same results.

>>17729770
Cry more, it's really attractive to girls.

>but how much are they getting right?
next to nothing

>>17729679
>intelligent dudes
>Red Pill subreddit
Pick one.

>>17729713
>pointing out women's double standards and hypocrisy in dating is less accepted than the opposite
Like?

>it is much easier for a woman to get laid if she really wants to
If she's willing to fuck the first creeper, which is rather dangerous and nasty.

>men are still expected to make the first move
If you still live in some conservative shithole. I never had to make the first move and I am hardly a 10/10 guy with a nice car and all the jazz.

>judged harshly for potentially not doing that great
Like?

>with technological developments making ghosting etc very easy and a lot of people having sex early onwards
How is any of this negative and related to women?

>>17729757
I don't get hung up on it, the good qualities outweigh the bad.

>>17729765
Lol, if dating were that easy, I'd leave the streets and get back with Angelina, because clearly I'm Brad Pitt.

>>17729778
>Only if you have no experience and are trying to analyze everything rationally
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I have personally tried to tie my shoes with each hand reversed, way harder than it needs to be, just like dating. But who's gonna show me the way? I'm sorry but for me it's gotta be these red pill assholes, because nobody else is ever gonna fucking do it, much less myself.

>those women are women with issues
They are not! Perfectly healthy driven women, working on careers and emotionally stable who have long conversations with me but then have an argument with some jacked dude who makes it real heated by yelling at her "get the fuck out of my apartment", only for her to be hanging out with him within a couple days. I do not want this shit to exist the way it does, believe me, but it happens right before my eyes.

>>17729785
In fairness, this attitude has to flow both ways. The rhetoric that a lot (frankly, most) feminists, gender activists, and so on, use online and off, is exceptionally one-sided. I really don't think the guy you responded to was trying to say, "I have it worse overall," he was trying to say "Hey -- there are some arenas in which it sucks for me too, BECAUSE of my gender, not in spite of it," something that it's very hard to get many feminists to admit. At best you can get them to say something like, "Well, gender roles can be bad for a lot of men, too, and feminism addresses that," but that's a pretty hollow concession when "the patriarchy" and "male privilege" and so on form the base for almost every conversation. At worst you get accused of "mansplaining" or "derailing the discussion."

More briefly: it's hard NOT to turn it into a pissing contest when "In our society, ONLY men can have privilege" is a mainstream feminist sentiment, and not an obnoxious, fringe one.

I want to be clear that I'm aware that "feminists" are not some monolithic hive mind, that many (most) of their complaints do indeed have merit, and that I'm generalizing about them. But a completely fair, comprehensive treatment would have to be a lot longer than I have space or time for here. I'm not accusing them of being boogeymen.

>>17729822
>I don't get hung up on it, the good qualities outweigh the bad.

Ignoring that doesn't make you immune to it. Hang around hate for too long and you will start feeling like that.

You outright admitted you were bitter, as they are. Those board are a festering ground for hate.

>>17729827
>ONLY men can have privilege" is a mainstream feminist sentiment, and not an obnoxious, fringe one.
What privilege do women have?

>>17729402
>How true do you think the general /r9k/ outlook on modern gender dynamics is?
In theory, or in practice?

In theory, it's very, very ckose to zero. The only part of their theory that is not bullshit is the idea that rejection is not worth fearing, which they picked up from PUA.

In practice, it's actually zero, because their aforementioned single piece of worthwhile advice, they don't even take.

>>17729827

And if the Red Pill was only about poking flaws in feminism, I'd say they have merit. But they are not.

I said this: >>17729414

>That's a board full of hateful fucks. Even if they stumble upon something worthwhile, you'd be better off not hanging there. Better for your sanity and personality.

I'm not saying anything an asshole says is a lie automatically. I'm saying that place is too full of hate to be a good place to spend your time.

Both men and women have difficulties when dating because of their gender. Dialogue means we can't go around talking about Chads and Stacies like those boards do, the same way we can't go around saying all men are rapists.

I've seen many feminists that are extremist assholes, and many that are sensitive and rational people that truly want to help both genders, both online and offline.

I've not seen anyone on those boards willing to give a hand to women. Women in general, not even "feminists".

A broken clock is right twice a day. They say some useful stuff. They are just not equipped to actually take that stuff to the world without making all men look like assholes.

>>17729841
This whole concept of "privilege" kind of irks me. SOME women are extremely privileged financially, socially, intellectually, any way you can use the word "privilege," you can find women who have it. SOME women do not.

SOME men are extremely privileged, SOME are disadvantaged.

You can certainly make generalizations and observe patterns and say that, on average, men have an advantage in their professional lives or whatever. But you can't apply those generalizations to all men or all women, because they just won't hold up. "Privilege" is an interpersonal thing, it changes on a case-by-case basis.

>>17729785
>Ask how you can make things better, and how how others can, and share that information with respect, not hate.
Let's just accept that there are hateful people in the world alright? Exhibit A >>17729796 People are going to interpret hate however they want. So when a bunch of guys like those on the red pill, who have had more sex with women than I have, are saying repeatedly, you should not respect women unconditionally, you need to treat them like shit every once in a while and they love it, is that hate? Or is that them legit trying to help me out. It's a blurry line.

>>17729854
They're talking about privilege that comes with simply being male that puts women at disadvantages for something they have no control over.

>>17729854
In case of the men, that privilege tends to come with being a man. Hence male privilege. Obviously women can have privilege too, everybody in the first world is ridiculously privileged; but there is no privilege with being simply a woman.

>But you can't apply those generalizations to all men or all women, because they just won't hold up. "Privilege" is an interpersonal thing, it changes on a case-by-case basis.
You're partly right. Basically it's like starting a game with a level up. Obviously being a male or even white doesn't guarantee that you never had problems or an easy life or anything like that, it really doesn't say much about you. It just means that you never had to deal with problems everybody who isn't male or white has to deal with.

>>17729864
Hateful things are hateful no matter who is saying it.

Wow get a grip.

>>17729869
It doesn't really exist, though. It's some "the grass must be greener on the other side" shit. SOME men are born with privilege, but if that family has a daughter too, she's born with pretty much the same privilege. The rest of us - male or female - don't get any respect unless we demand it and fight to keep it

File: 1415708854591.jpg (136KB, 830x1062px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 830x1062px

People really need to consider that the world isn't the same for everyone.

It might be that the reason outlooks on how each gender "normally acts" are so varied is because people experience wildly different things.

If you are a sperglord virgin who has been shat on by every woman who doesn't weight 50lbs more than you then its pretty fucking valid to have that /r9k/ mindset. It isn't ever "hurr they are losers so they are wrong". That is the world they live in and that is how they are treated by women.

Repeat this exercise for the hambeasts of tumblr who look out to a world of men who don't want to fuck them or hire them. They might be facing a men ruled world where they are absolutely fucked over by men. Even if those men are fucking them over because they are fat ugly and dumb.

That being said their are white knights who got pitty fucked and will spend their entire existence thinking worshiping women will get them laid.

Their is chad who got his first and second blow job from the hottest girls in his middle school because one was jealous of the other- his view on women is going to be pretty fucking different and he'll have no idea why nerds can't just "grab em by the pussy".

>>17729881
It does exist, you just really clearly don't understand what they're talking about.

>>17729864

See, here's the point.

"Putting women on a pedestal" and "respecting them" is not the same thing.

"Learning to do things for yourself and having your own life" and "you need to treat them like shit every once in a while" is not the same thing.

The basis of their ideas is sound. Don't live like a puppy following a girl and obsessing over her. Cool.

But there's no need the be an ass to women. See the difference?

>>17729890
so give an example

>>17729889

Doesn't make it less hateful or toxic to those around you, though.

Growing up means learning the world is not just like you perceive it. Developing empathy means learning to at least imagine that there are other worldviews.

>>17729895
It sounds like what you're saying should be obvious, but "putting women on a pedestal" is all I've ever been taught my entire life by movies, songs, books, culture, teachers, society, etc. So to undo that programming it does take something as harsh as "treat women like shit" but also "do it playfully", it's not just to be mean, it's because they like the emotional stimulation and that helps the potential relationship.

>>17729896
Here's just one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-sexist-stereotypes-mean-doctors-ignore-womens-pain-a7157931.html


When people talk about male privilege they're not talking about money or having a "privileged upbringing" it's about how you are treated in society. It's pervasive.

>>17729890
I think I do, I had to take a semester-long college course on this stuff. I disagreed with some of the stuff they were teaching us, though. These concepts aren't rooted in objective fact, it's basically a philosophy, and it's a relatively new one.

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, I'm just saying you can't apply concepts of "privilege" to entire races & genders. It's much more fluid than that. A woman working for a male boss in an office with mostly men is at a disadvantage. A man working for a female boss in an office with mostly women is at a similar disadvantage.

File: 1381087465953.jpg (75KB, 385x592px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 385x592px

>>17729904
Doesn't make which one less toxic?

Because they all potentially hurt each other. Especially people with the "why can't you be so tolerant like me you filthy bigot" attitudes.

>Growing up means learning the world is not just like you perceive it.
You will never perceive the world in a way other than the way you perceive it. There is no growing out of the human condition.

>>17729914
>A man working for a female boss in an office with mostly women is at a similar disadvantage.
Where's your citation of your precious "objective facts" to back this up?

>>17729911
>by movies, songs, books,

You mean those things made by men where women are just the reward for the hero?

See? That's my point. The fact that you don't have a basis to distinguish between "obsession" and "respect" is not the fault of women only.

And the process should happen inside you, learning to respect yourself and others, not putting them down.

Also, that reading ignores the problem women face. It's fun to look and only see your own problems, right?

>>17729911
The thing is though, nobody is telling you to "treat women like shit." They're telling you to be real & honest with women, rather than being disingenuously pleasant and agreeable to every single thing they say. You should be able to treat yourself with respect without treating others like shit. It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other choice.

>>17729921

Notice how my phrase is "learning the world is not just like you perceive it."?

Like, I'm not saying you will ever learn what it feels like to be a black woman living in France. But you know her life is different than yours.

That's part of growing up, learning that there are other ways to live life and that you don't hold the ultimate truth about everything.

Also, any extremist idea can be toxic and dangerous.

>>17729925

Thanks Anon! you made my point better than I did.

>>17729922
Personal experience, I guess? I worked in a female-majority office for a couple years after college, and I went through pretty much everything I hear women talking about concerning "sexism in the workplace." They'd talk over me, take my ideas and pass them off as their own, doubt my work and triple-check everything I did even though I never fucked up, and talk down to me like a child. I had a co-worker who was basically sexually harassing me, verbally and physically, on a near-daily basis for weeks on end. When I brought it up to my supervisor, she literally told me to stop being a baby.

It wasn't all bad, I learned a lot working there. The manager is an awesome lady who started the business herself, and she's continued to help me and mentor me even after I moved on.

The point I'm trying to make is that "privilege," in the way you're talking about it, is a matter of majorities and minorities. The majority pretty always has the privilege. But that changes based on the situation, so generalizations about the population as a whole don't necessarily apply to everyone's life.

And sorry - I didn't mean to say "I have the facts and you don't." I don't either. I was trying to say discussions about sociology are pretty subjective, everyone's just speaking from their own experience, so just because I paid to learn this stuff in a college course doesn't mean it's "objective fact."

>>17729954
>Personal experience, I guess?
Opinion discarded.

There's dozens and dozens of "objective facts" in the form of research papers clearly outlining the dynamics and effects of sexism against women in the workplace.

It's really not as subjective as you are making it out to be. It's safe to generalize on this specific topic because there actually are facts to back it up. You don't have the facts so maybe you should educate yourself a bit more on the subject before dismissing it entirely based on your own personal experience. That's what this entire thread is about anyway isn't it.

>>17729913
Right. Because some people in some society think something sexist about women means all men are privileged.
Well by this logic women have mountains of privilege. You know, how people think men are more violent and they get much longer sentences, how they're always told to "man up" when they complain about something, how they're considered shittier parents and almost always lose custody in divorces, how they're discouraged from expressing their feelings and desires... list goes on.

People are treated different based on their sex. Sometimes it's better sometimes it's worse, depending on the society and the circles they interact with. Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a talk about privilege because you'll end up with everyone being privileged to no end.

>>17729962
You asked for an example and I gave it to you. I can't make you understand and I don't really care to but, please:

>Because some people in some society think something sexist about women means all men are privileged.

Don't put words in my mouth. Play strawman with someone else, I'm not in the mood.

>>17729914
> I'm just saying you can't apply concepts of "privilege" to entire races & genders.
You still fail to understand what it even means.

Let's try a fool proof example: white privilege, which is even more extreme than male privilege. If you're white, you have the privilege not to be called a nigger, not to have your skills questioned because of your race or to deal with racial stereotypes, not to hear anybody in power (or the mainstream media) comment negatively about your entire race, have almost every piece of media centered around your race, have the history of your race taught in school and generally never even having your race singled out as a characteristic. And there is a potential wall of text when it comes to treatment by the police/authorities but you hopefully get the point now. Oh, you also have the privilege not to notice any of this stuff ever.

Again, none of this means you grew up rich, never had any problems or anything like that. You simply never had to deal with any potential problems anybody who isn't white has to deal with.

>>17729960
That's fair. And I would've agreed from the beginning that men still have the power in MORE areas than women. I'm just saying the generalizations don't hold true for everyone.

If I'm being completely honest, I'm kinda coming at it from a place of bitterness. I grew up poor and paid my own way through college, and spent 4 years having sheltered rich girls tell me how "privileged" I was.

File: IMG_0197.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

My family is from Iraq

The stuff /r9k/ says is common sense to us

Men are naturally polygamous (but at the same time more romantic) perverts who will fuck almost any hole

Women are manipulative, irrational, hypergamus, childlike cunts with a dual mating strategy (cruel dominant arrogant men for sex, kind gentle men for cucking) & opportunistic feelings who can't function without a herd

But WWII made the west paranoid about nazis so we have to pretend everyone is equal

>>17729967
>If you're white, you have the privilege not to be called a nigger, not to have your skills questioned because of your race or to deal with racial stereotypes, not to hear anybody in power (or the mainstream media) comment negatively about your entire race, have almost every piece of media centered around your race, have the history of your race taught in school and generally never even having your race singled out as a characteristic.
The ONLY part of this that's true is that I've never been called a nigger. White privilege is real, but you picked some bad examples.

File: 1477166029229.jpg (7KB, 200x200px)

7KB, 200x200px

>>17729402

A classic case of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a natural occurrence in human processing that happens when our minds are only capable of accepting evidence that validates the conclusions we've already come to.

For example, if you go into a "haunted house" already believing in ghosts your mind will hear a creak and immediately think ghost or feel a cold chill and immediately think a spirit is around you.

If a person who has decided they don't believe in ghosts go into this house and hear the same creak their mind will assume the foundation is settling, or feel the same chill and think maybe a window is open.

/r9k/ is a collection of people sharing an identical brand of mass confirmation bias hysteria. When confronted with disappointments, confusion, feelings of inadequacy and fear of the opposite sex their minds are only able to process facts and evidence that supports the theory that none of these disappointments or failures are their fault; its the fault of women, of course.

They have gained so much footing mainly because, firstly, there is a shred of truth to everything they say. There ARE terrible, terrible women out there, but again, their confirmation bias prevents them from seeing the bigger picture. Acknowledging that not all women are terrible would crumple their ideology so obviously, they refute it.

Secondly, its very easy to program a young mind. These kids don't have any point of reference or experience to compare the propaganda they are being fed to; the same way warlords love to recruit children to fight because their minds are empty of preconceived notions and are easily susceptible to coercion.

>>17729965
Yes, I asked for an example, you gave a bad one and I explained why it's bad.

>Don't put words in my mouth.
That's exactly what that article is about. Doctors in UK think women are more sensitive and emotional and women suffer because of it.

Also
>it's not my job to educate you
lol fuck off

>>17729967
> If you're white, you have the privilege not to be called a nigger,
if youre black you have the privilege not to be called a cracker
>not to have your skills questioned because of your race
not to have your values questioned because of your race
>deal with racial stereotypes
Yeah, that never happens. We just don't make a big fucking deal out of everything. Remember that "white people can't dance" joke everybody kept making some time ago? What about how so many black people think all white people are inherently evil? But yeah, of course only blacks have to deal with stereotypes.
>not to hear anybody in power (or the mainstream media) comment negatively about your entire race,
Right, except in the last few years people in power keep commenting negatively about whites. And about how we all need to apologize for what our grandfathers did. And about how everything we worked hard to acquire is a product of some privilege.

I can keep going but I think you see my point by now. Two can play this game, faggot.

>>17729987

>The ONLY part of this that's true is that I've never been called a nigger.

No, it is all true. It happens to everyone, depending on what area they live in, and it happens to white people the least, and when it DOES happen there isn't as big of a socioeconomic impact because lets say for example if a black community or an indian reservation started spreading anti-white propaganda it wouldn't affect the white population as nearly as much as the entirety of white people doing the same thing.

White privilege is real but its more about the hurdles that white people don't have to jump as opposed to the things in life just given exclusively to white people.

>>17730014
It's not a bad one. It demonstrates the concept of "male privilege" perfectly. You don't think such a thing exists so I'm not even sure why you asked for an example.

>it's not my job to educate you
Again with the strawman and putting words in my mouth.

More like you can lead a horse to water...

OP here. I've returned and I have made such a mess with this thread.

I had another thought on this when trying to figure out why this question mattered to me that was triggered by >>17729984 in that my girlfriend was going through some stuff and said she didn't want to have sex for a while. She has good reasons to feel that way, but my thoughts immediately turned to "red pill" stuff I'd read on /r9k/. It made me angry. I started thinking about how I'm being used as a beta provider, or groomed to do such. I wonder how possible that is.

File: 1477706419577.png (753KB, 791x786px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 791x786px

>>17730014

I like how you compare 400 years of slavery, violence, segregation and oppression to the last few years sometimes people say things about white people that hurts your feelings.

I understand you're just trying to flip the script and turn it back onto black people but you're either completely retarded or being purposefully disingenuous when you try to compare the racial and historical implications of being called a cracker to being called a nigger.

You do know those two things are LEAGUES apart in severity and historical/cultural significance, right?

You fuckin serious, dude?

>>17730014
>a cracker
You know "cracker" comes from whip-cracker, right?

lol of course you don't. White people have it so tough.

>>17729984

My family is from Denamrk.

That Arabs are shitty is common sense to us.

Arabs are naturally dirtier, more violent, unwilling to integrate, and more likely to bomb our streets.

They lie more and do terrible things as a matter of faith.

But modern liberals made us all pretend we're all equal.

Do you see how that reasoning works?

>>17730034
Wait, but that works so well. It all makes sense.

>>17730034
I don't disagree

What's your point?

>>17730018
No, I do believe that people get treated differently because of their sexes. But there are pros and cons to both sexes and you people see everyone as victims except for white male who have only privileged and you think they benefit on everyone elses suffering. Which is bullshit.

>it's not my job to educate you
>I can't make you understand and I don't really care
Yeah, you've gone so far in your shitty ideology that you always assume you're in the right. You don't even consider the other argument, you just KNOW it's flawed. Hence, everyone who doesn't agree with you does so because he's uninformed. You dismiss every argument against you with a couple of buzzwords. Huh, sounds a lot like what >>17729546 was saying.

>>17730023
Right, because people who are called nigger are experiencing 400 years of slavery and all that. It's the same fucking thing you retarded nigger, they're just getting they're feelings hurt. No one is whipping them into picking up cotton by calling them nigger. See, I just did it to you and I only hurt your feelings. Just how you hurt my feelings by calling me a retard.

The mental gymnastics you people do are unbelievable.

>>17729987
>The ONLY part of this that's true is that I've never been called a nigger.

So your boss questioned your skills based on your race? You saw a politician blaming white people for something? Most movies/books don't have a white protagonist? You ever wondered why the history class skipped all the achievements made by white people? Come on.

>>17730014
>if youre black you have the privilege not to be called a cracker
It's unlikely to come from somebody with power over you. Besides, it's hardly even on the same level as nigger.

>not to have your values questioned because of your race
When did it ever happen to whites from a source of power?

>Remember that "white people can't dance" joke everybody kept making some time ago?
Compared to "niggers are gangsters/thugs" it's quite tame, and again, never came from anybody relevant.

>What about how so many black people think all white people are inherently evil?
And how many of them are in power?

>But yeah, of course only blacks have to deal with stereotypes.
Guess I could've specified that they have to come from a position of power to be relevant. Jamal hating whites is his personal idiocy. Steven hating blacks can get in office or decide not hiring blacks.

> people in power keep commenting negatively about whites.
Examples, please.

>And about how we all need to apologize for what our grandfathers did.
Usually specified to a nation say Americans and slavery or Germans and holocaust. Nobody in power ever blamed ze white race for either but feel free to give counter examples.

>And about how everything we worked hard to acquire is a product of some privilege.
Privilege doesn't imply that. Simply that it made it easier, which is quite obvious.

>>17730065
>Right, because people who are called nigger are experiencing 400 years of slavery and all that.
Many of them and especially their grandparents did experience the aftermath from slavery like segregation and the likes.

>>17730030
You're missing the point. The word is still a racial insult.
nigger = that guy was a slave
cracker = that guy was a vile tyrant
Or are you under the impression that we enjoy being called vile tyrants? When people call others "cracker" they don't mean it as a fucking compliment.

>>17730065
>you think they benefit on everyone elses suffering. Which is bullshit.
Actually what's bullshit is you telling me that I think something I never even said.

I get that you're on a crusade and anyone who even seems like they might disagree with you is the enemy you've concocted in your head, no matter WHAT they actually said but I'm not going to engage in your blatant strawman shitflinging that you do so reflexively I don't even think you realize you're doing it.

You're under this impression that I'm arguing with you and I'm not lol. I gave you an example of male privilege, that's all.

>>17729841
None of the people who replied to this were me, I had to leave for a while. I'm sure the conversation's moved on, but since you asked me a direct question:

- Women aren't conditioned to derive their self-worth from their sexual success to the extent that men are; i.e. while women are obviously under enormous pressure to not be seen as "sluts," men are under more pressure to not be sexually INactive (esp. virgins). You can see the results every day on here.
- Men are similarly conditioned to derive their self-worth from their professional (financial) success to a greater extent than women are.
- Women aren't conditioned to treat their health & safety carelessly the way men are. Women are rarely pressured into fights, pressured into ignoring unsafe working conditions, and so on.
- Men (in America) are more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than women are. The incredulity with which this statement is usually received is part of the problem. It's also much harder for male abuse victims to get taken seriously by social workers, law enforcement, etc.
- It's less socially acceptable for men to act feminine than for women to act masculine; male gender roles are more rigid.
- And there's the many allegations that the law favors men in custody and divorce cases etc, some of which have merit.

I am not claiming that any of this outweighs the mountains of shit that women have to put up with in their professional and academic lives, the daily threats to their dignity and safety, and so on; like I said, I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest. But neither is it a whole lot of nothing.

>>17730260
Most of these are true but I wouldn't go so far and call any them privilege, at least not by the general understanding of the word, while with a more broad definition, one could squeeze it in. Though I'd say it's more of "gender expectations" that benefit women/put men at disadvantage, since some of them need certain people involved to take action and aren't THAT universal.

Take
>- Women aren't conditioned to treat their health & safety carelessly the way men are. Women are rarely pressured into fights
>- Men are similarly conditioned to derive their self-worth from their professional (financial) success to a greater extent than women are.
While definitely true, it's more common in really backwards places, while things like more rigid gender roles are indeed pretty universal sans few positive exceptions.

>Men (in America) are more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than women are.
That one seems wrong though. Yes, they are massively underrepresented, get much lesser support and often ridiculed but last time I checked it's still 40-60. Obviously just me being anal over data, the main point stands.

>>17730298
I appreciate the response. I'm not sure under what definition those wouldn't count as privilege, though; obviously there's no Privilege Institute issuing official criteria, but pervasive social pressures crop up in articles about privilege & conversations I've been party to all the time, especially if they're injurious to physical or mental health, as I believe several of my examples are. "Male privilege is not being shamed for being sexually active"; I hear that all the time, and it's essentially the flipside of one of mine. I've always accepted it as a pretty clear-cut (and correct) example of male privilege. Do you disagree? That's a real question, not rhetorical.

>While definitely true, it's more common in really backwards places, while things like more rigid gender roles are indeed pretty universal sans few positive exceptions.
I don't disagree, but I'd also note that most examples of male privilege are also more common in pretty backwards places. Sexual harassment and rape are certainly more common there, though of course they're unfortunately common everywhere. That's not really a counter to anything you said -- just a note.

>That one seems wrong though.
I can probably pull up citations if you give me some time (I have to step out again, sorry -- but if you reply I'll read it eventually and reply.) My degrees are in anthropology; sociology/contemporary anthropology aren't my specialities but we specifically covered that in one of my classes back in school (on the anthropology of violence of all kinds), so I remember that sources do exist. I can't speak to the methodologies they used, how they differ from the studies that found the 40-60 ratio, and for full disclosure, the ratio they found was pretty close to 50-50, VERY slightly skewed in favor of women. Undergrad was a while ago, though, it'd take some digging to find, but I'll try later.

Like I said, if you respond I'll see it eventually. Sorry -- busy evening. But I appreciate the reply.

I gotta go but I should note also that while the studies found that men were more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse and violence, they also found that women were more likely to be hospitalized or killed by it, for fairly obvious reasons. But of course domestic violence is deeply harmful even if it results in no physical injury at all. This is all assuming my memories of those lessons are correct, though -- I really will try and find those studies later.

File: 1381910178251.gif (1MB, 410x311px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 410x311px

>>17730065

>Right, because people who are called nigger are experiencing 400 years of slavery and all that.

That's not what I said. My entire post just sailed right over your head didn't it.

>It's the same fucking thing you retarded nigger, they're just getting they're feelings hurt.

I can begin to explain to you in words how astronomically stupid you are.

>No one is whipping them into picking up cotton by calling them nigger.

Yes, because racism can't come in any other forms than whipping people into picking cotton. Do you even hear yourself?

>The mental gymnastics you people do are unbelievable.

Not only do you have no idea what mental gymnastics are, I'm amazed you have the mental capacity to form the words in your mind and type them out with your fingers.

I was going to try to engage you a big but it seems that you are operating with absolutely no logic, critical thinking or historical accuracy. Every single word of my post just sailed so far over your head you didn't even feel the gust. You just turned on the spew machine and typed out a bunch of disconnected, non sensical bullshit.

Good luck, anon. The amount of idiocy you just packed into one post is an astonishing feat.

>>17730080


>You're missing the point. The word is still a racial insult.

Goldfish and great white sharks are both just fish. The fact that the two things aren't equivalent is obvious if you use your fucking brain.

>>17730356
>"Male privilege is not being shamed for being sexually active"
>I've always accepted it as a pretty clear-cut (and correct) example of male privilege. Do you disagree?
Yeah it's pretty similar to one of your examples and find it hard to tell too ... it's definitely close to the truth but at some point they tend to get the "manwhore" label even in rather liberal cycles. The label itself is rarely viewed as negatively as "whore" but it's still there. Due the potential variations for the number and high dependence on social cycles I'd say it's not clear cut for "privilege". IMO the word should be reserved for the more universal stuff.

>most examples of male privilege are also more common in pretty backwards places.
Yeah, definitely. Hence the males vs females bullshit that often comes up in discussions about feminism is so silly, both genders would be better off with equality yet couple extremists from one side or the other leach attention away from the main goal with arguing about the naming or who suffers most.

>I can probably pull up citations if you give me some time
Nah, no need to take the trouble for something so minuscule; I think we both agree that the number of victims is pretty close and that males got a much harder time addressing it and getting help; it wouldn't be that surprising if the dark number of men who don't report it would push the ratio up, only pointed it out because of the last study I saw, which was a while ago.

>>17730212
They are right wing SJWs. They skew statistics, don't quote the whole story use biased sources, and play the victim. Nothing is ever their fault.

The extreme left wing and right wing are part of the same "bird" if that makes sense.

They and SJWs should hatefuck each other.

>>17730443
Didn't mean to quote anyone, forgot to erase from last thread.

>>17730443
Always wondered how the left wing label made sense for le SJWs. From the bits I heard, no political side really fits. Do they have any unified economics views? Most aren't even that socially liberal and seem to have a pretty rigid view of what's okay and what's not, so closer to traditional social right wing but without the past where their views were acceptable.

>>17730459
The ones you're talking about are either a living manifestation of white guilt, or basically just witch-hunters. Neither have any real political convictions. The white-guilt crowd are just desperately trying to prove "I'm not a bigot, I'm not the bad guy." The witch-hunters are just going for targets that they're "allowed" to attack viciously, to take out the anger & frustration they've built up in their own lives. Today, they're allowed to go after "bigots." Twenty years earlier, they'd be outspoken homophobes, and racists twenty years before that.

>>17729402
its retarded
everyone sucks. not just men, not just women. most people suck. finding someone that doesnt suck is a long, tedious process. this frustrates everyone who tries, and blaming a group of people is easier than dealing with the truth. hence, /r9k/

Well, there is a little bit of truth in it, I believe.

A lot of girls have an advantage when it comes to dating, they have a much bigger dating pool than your average dude. Also, they often do want a guy who's out of their league and sometimes they can reach it, while for guys it's rare. Having guys getting crushes on you all the time can be a pain in the ass though, after I had some girls orbit me, I realized that.

Still it's nowhere as bad as r9k makes it seem, like they tend to say even an ugly girl has it better in dating world than an average guy. Not true, ugly girls get their fair dose of shit, pretty sure more of it than your average guy.

Off-topic, but I just find the "cock carousel" term really funny.
I mean, have you been on a carousel? You stay on one horse for the whole ride.

>>17729402

the general outlook on women is somewhat right.

Most women are toxic. They hate weakness in men. If man is weak he is ostracised and shunned. Im not talking about friendzone.

They do the same with weak women.

Overall women hate weakness. Where men tend to support weak members of society women would rather send them on some island where they wouldnt have to interact with them at all.

File: I wanna fuck that x high def.png (13KB, 599x605px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 599x605px

>>17729402
dat bunny

>>17729461
Literally all of that is true. ONLY difference between me and r9k is I actually try to blend ibto the system and I'm hoping Trump will fix it. R9k doesn't even try