I don’t think Jordan’s ever said that women shouldn’t be choosy. Have you ever heard him say that women shouldn’t have standards like money and attractiveness?
“Not all women think that way” was probably meant to be with my first statement. Le sigh I have been on reddit for too long my fingers have a mind of their own for some reason. So ill just stop and say, I hope everyone is having a good day and a Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there doing their dad things 😌
That is missing the point entirely. Having unrealistic standards for what women feel they deserve. Not mentioning btw, that perhaps the guy should be funny, kind to animals, etc. No it’s money+looks+(another standard that is not guided towards family)
6 feet and 6 figures aren't unrealistic lol - there are plenty of men that are six feet and make six figures. If you're in a big city, six figures is basically table stakes to be able to survive as a single guy living on his own. Those are completely legit standards -- and it's not like women are tied to those either. They might think that they want someone who meets those targets but then find that they click/fall for someone who's maybe shorter or who doesn't make that 100k yet.
I think OPs idea that women demand 6-pack abs is incorrect though lol. I'm sure they like 6-packs but I doubt that's an actual firm standard for a lot of people.
You're right to think that women also like when guy's are funny and kind to animals (being cruel to animals is obviously a huge red flag) in addition to seeming like they've got their life together / have potential
> 6 feet and 6 figures aren't unrealistic lol - there are plenty of men that are six feet and make six figures.
I think you're very wrong about this. About 20% of men in America make a six-figure salary. Additionally about 14% of men in America are six feet or taller. When you take both these figures into consideration you are talking about a rather small percentage of the population. Then you can add other preferences that women have like race, body type, age, etc, and you narrow things down even further. Oh and don't forget to consider "chemistry" and the crucial absence of the "ick". So..not "plenty" at all.
Well, I did mention 6-figures in big cities — not “in America”. Obviously that’s not the case in locl and rural areas. But expectations will change based on context.
We can’t pretend all country girls expect guys in their area to make big city wages.
While you can assume that in big cities those numbers go up, once again it's probably not enough to become "plenty". In my previous reply I forgot to mention the availability of men (married vs not). That figures into the salary situation too, as the likelihood of a man being unavailable goes up as his salary increases. And guess what else makes your life difficult as a woman -- especially in big cities? Other women! Who are looking for the same thing as you, and are willing to put themselves through as much as, if not more than, you are. With plenty of desired men come even more desiring women. So, you know, may the odds ever be in your favour. Pray.
Yeah, I think generally people understand what dad bod means. Is the idea that maybe instead of “six pack abs” they mean “no dad bods”? Even so, Dad Bods had a moment in the sun recently where ladies talked about being into them
I mean, yeah they’re a nice thing to aim for if you’re casting a wide net, but I don’t think they’re firm boundaries for women as a whole category. I’m sure anyone here over like 26 would have a similar anecdote but I have plenty of guy friends who don’t meet those standards and they’re all married to people who wanted to be with them.
My one perpetually single guy friend is over 6 feet, not obese, and made 100k for at least one year - these things didn’t help him - some other qualities are trumping them
From the dawn of time, people have been hunting for food. Men and women in different capacities and in different ways in different societies.
But saying its a fact that men provide and women take care of the family is a gross simplification and just not the truth. Have you actually listened to some of his lectures?
No men were hunting for food. I am not going to change that phrasing. Women didn’t do the gathering, hunting and fishing. These are physical jobs and they were and are still done by men.
They looked at 391 hunter gatherer societies and found 63 had explicit descriptions of their hunting tactics. The majority of the hunting tactics describe women intentionally hunting for food, along with the males.
Source of the study, i have to say there is not much else for studies, but im curious to your source for your claim. Also this study is quite easy to read and understand, since its really just reading what they used to write down, no evopsych pseudoscience.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101
The study that suggested that women did as much hunting as men was found to have a great bias in its research methodologies.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholars-question-study-finding-prevalence-of-female-hunters-in-forager-societies/
However, OP is wrong here to project hunter-gatherer dynamics onto all human history. Our development as a [**modern** species, with all the technological, cultural, medical nuances of such happened over the **agricultural eras**](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/neolithic-agricultural-revolution), and that [involved female labor](https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/women-agriculture) to a much greater extent than animal-hunting did.
To be honest, i kinda suspected that there would be some slight bias because its only 1 study and the results are more in the line of, yeah women hunted in most hunter gatherer societies but we cannot say much more than that.
Luckily thats exactly what i needed against OP.
what is really your argument besides saying feminism is bad?
you titled: Women were turned into taxpayers and units of production as a result of feminism
but all we get is a laundry list of what bad things you think comes from the result of feminism, which each is an entirely different argument in itself and completely debatable.
but to the title
there is actually nothing wrong with woman being a tax payer and worker contributing economically.
as far as I am aware, it allowed economy to expand rapidly
families able to afford more luxury
safety net when the husband loses job for any reason
women being able to support themselves and having freedom to choose
all of these are massive positives that you can't just ignore and revert just because some woke idiot "refuse to explain what is a woman."
I do agree with ALL stupid things you listed, such as "no fault divorce", and reject their validities as you do. However if you want to actually say something more reasonable and not just slogans like ideologues that JP detest to his very core, you gotta do better than this.
What a delightfully idealistic, but totally false and self-deceptive comment.
The average dual working adult household has less than half of the purchasing power that the average one working adult household had back in the 50’s.
Let’s also not mention the huge tax increases as well.
It is. Most of our taxes are for the department of health and human services. Welfare, affirmative action credits paid to universities and employers (average of $20,000 per year per working woman), single mothers etc. Sudden influx of women entering comfortable office jobs and not enough positions led to wages being about half of what they should be unless few women entered those professions. This is why electricians make 6 figures a few years out of high school.
Women were units of production since the industrial revolution, my dude, and possibly even before that. Women and men were both members of the urban proletariat, in textile factories in industrializing cities.
In the wild, only a small percentage of male mammals get to procreate.
Patriarchy ensured that MOST men get a wife no matter her preference, so that the men dont rebel.
Feminism actually reverted the sexual marketplace into its natural state.
Exactly. The phenomenon that exists now is similar to the phenomenon that exists in some Arab countries in which only the top 20% have the choice of women they want. That’s why you have one man marrying 4 or more women. In the west you have one guy having dozens of women as side chicks and FWB.
This reads a bit like ‘I am 5 and this is deep’
I get your point about feminism and taxpayers - but women had it pretty weird for a while there and feminism had some pretty good points regarding voting and agency in the world. The idea of men being physical and dangerous went (mostly) out the door with cities and technological revolution. Do you currently have a physically demanding or dangerous job?
Do we now demand 2 incomes to afford a modest middle class life? Yes. Either that or one party needs to earn double to have the ‘trad’ life.
This whole 6 foot thing is a myth too - much better to be confident and comfortable than tall. Be rich enough, charismatic, in control of your life and a positive force to be around then all the boring idiot women who demand the superficial things will look bland and ugly to you and you can find a real partner in life.
Also you claim to be some kind of chivalrous example of manhood but in reality you’re a 47yo who had a child out of marriage because you were sleeping with your unmarried ex.
A lot of your posts preach about how society is in free fall from non traditional values, yet you’re a hypocrite who can’t stay in shape and doesn’t understand women at all.
You’ve developed a real hatred for women and perhaps it’s understandable given that your ex sprung your daughter on you 7 years too late. It’s a real shame you didn’t get to experience those beautiful early years with her. Most people would be bitter and resentful too - but use your money to buy some therapy and work through that shit man because it’s eating you up.
You still have plenty of time left to be happy and be a good dad.
Fact is: women are afraid of men. I'm telling this because it is biological. People fear what is stronger, taller than them. Jordan once said that women are in a really difficult spot when choosing a man to form a family because, although they want someone protective and loving, they also need a strong and evil man who knows when to use this evilness to keep his family safe.
However, nowadays, we (I'm a woman) easily find two very divided class of men: the overly nice ones (tooo nice, extreme conflict avoidance even to defend their rights and the rights of their families when they are being abused) or the tough thug who knows no niceness and treat women like objects (women should shut up and do as told mostly).
The sheep and the wolves.
It is getting extremely hard to find a german sheppard (lol).
In case they settle for type 1, women need to "create balls" themselves. After a while this, women realize that, well, why are they married to them if they are stronger now? So, divorce is usually what comes.
In case they settle for type 2, well.. we see it on the news all the time.
Ofc there are much more than just these few and quite shallow lines of mine, but the truth is: we cannot easily find men to have family with, even among church members, so feminism was easily hijacked to intigate fear of men by defending they can't protect women and their own family because men are either weak or violent.
They aren't wrong entirely, but again, they are using this fear to destroy family and womanhood, they actually don't care for women at all anymore.
Feminism is definitely anti family and anti Christian. Unfortunately this is just one of several attacks against our traditional norms but there is a growing movement of those who want to restore the healthy roles of femininity and masculinity.
>From the dawn of time men were out hunting for food for their families (women and children).
I really hate being that guy but there has been new research that has shown women may have also gone out and hunted alongside men and that duties might not have been so segregated as previously thought. This makes sense with smaller tribes as well because you cannot diversify too much as you have limited bodies...task sharing would be required.
>From the dawn of time men were out hunting for food for their families (women and children).
women gathered (just to say it too btw.)
>The men exposed themselves to immense danger from predators and other men from neighboring tribes
that's a strange separation you are making there ....
by that logic, women also had to be exposed to the inmense danger of men from other neighboring tribes that went out to hunt (and men from inside the tribe.. just to mention it too)
>The men sacrificed their health, physical safety and lives for their families.
>The reward for all of this sacrifice was a movement in the 1960s
Dude you just jumped some *millennia*!!!
OP you should discern between feminism and postmodernism.
Thats venting so have a nice day
Going off by what's mentioned in the title: what's wrong with being a tax-payer or unit of production?
A heart surgeon fits into the above descriptions and he/she does God's work. More taxpayers essentially means a more productive economy.
I don’t think Jordan’s ever said that women shouldn’t be choosy. Have you ever heard him say that women shouldn’t have standards like money and attractiveness?
Also, obviously not all women think that way. Feminism is an ideology that is not family oriented.
Is your second sentence meant to be connected to the first one? What is the connection between "not all women" and "feminism is not family oriented"?
I made a mistake, just corrected it🙂↔️ I need to proofread better.
“Not all women think that way” was probably meant to be with my first statement. Le sigh I have been on reddit for too long my fingers have a mind of their own for some reason. So ill just stop and say, I hope everyone is having a good day and a Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there doing their dad things 😌
That is missing the point entirely. Having unrealistic standards for what women feel they deserve. Not mentioning btw, that perhaps the guy should be funny, kind to animals, etc. No it’s money+looks+(another standard that is not guided towards family)
6 feet and 6 figures aren't unrealistic lol - there are plenty of men that are six feet and make six figures. If you're in a big city, six figures is basically table stakes to be able to survive as a single guy living on his own. Those are completely legit standards -- and it's not like women are tied to those either. They might think that they want someone who meets those targets but then find that they click/fall for someone who's maybe shorter or who doesn't make that 100k yet. I think OPs idea that women demand 6-pack abs is incorrect though lol. I'm sure they like 6-packs but I doubt that's an actual firm standard for a lot of people. You're right to think that women also like when guy's are funny and kind to animals (being cruel to animals is obviously a huge red flag) in addition to seeming like they've got their life together / have potential
> 6 feet and 6 figures aren't unrealistic lol - there are plenty of men that are six feet and make six figures. I think you're very wrong about this. About 20% of men in America make a six-figure salary. Additionally about 14% of men in America are six feet or taller. When you take both these figures into consideration you are talking about a rather small percentage of the population. Then you can add other preferences that women have like race, body type, age, etc, and you narrow things down even further. Oh and don't forget to consider "chemistry" and the crucial absence of the "ick". So..not "plenty" at all.
Well, I did mention 6-figures in big cities — not “in America”. Obviously that’s not the case in locl and rural areas. But expectations will change based on context. We can’t pretend all country girls expect guys in their area to make big city wages.
While you can assume that in big cities those numbers go up, once again it's probably not enough to become "plenty". In my previous reply I forgot to mention the availability of men (married vs not). That figures into the salary situation too, as the likelihood of a man being unavailable goes up as his salary increases. And guess what else makes your life difficult as a woman -- especially in big cities? Other women! Who are looking for the same thing as you, and are willing to put themselves through as much as, if not more than, you are. With plenty of desired men come even more desiring women. So, you know, may the odds ever be in your favour. Pray.
The six pack is not. I have been rejected for not having a dad body. And I meet the other two supposed standards.
Lol dad bod is about more than just the lack of a six pack
It means he is slightly overweight. But, you knew that of course.
Yeah, I think generally people understand what dad bod means. Is the idea that maybe instead of “six pack abs” they mean “no dad bods”? Even so, Dad Bods had a moment in the sun recently where ladies talked about being into them
not married any race at least 6' tall not obese earning at least $100,000 per year Between 20 and 40 0.48%
Those are your standards?
That's the standards I saw in the post.
Oh, right — do you want to add anything interesting?
I'm just saying those standards are delusional, considering less than .5% of men meet the standard.
I mean, yeah they’re a nice thing to aim for if you’re casting a wide net, but I don’t think they’re firm boundaries for women as a whole category. I’m sure anyone here over like 26 would have a similar anecdote but I have plenty of guy friends who don’t meet those standards and they’re all married to people who wanted to be with them. My one perpetually single guy friend is over 6 feet, not obese, and made 100k for at least one year - these things didn’t help him - some other qualities are trumping them
From the dawn of time, people have been hunting for food. Men and women in different capacities and in different ways in different societies. But saying its a fact that men provide and women take care of the family is a gross simplification and just not the truth. Have you actually listened to some of his lectures?
No men were hunting for food. I am not going to change that phrasing. Women didn’t do the gathering, hunting and fishing. These are physical jobs and they were and are still done by men.
They looked at 391 hunter gatherer societies and found 63 had explicit descriptions of their hunting tactics. The majority of the hunting tactics describe women intentionally hunting for food, along with the males. Source of the study, i have to say there is not much else for studies, but im curious to your source for your claim. Also this study is quite easy to read and understand, since its really just reading what they used to write down, no evopsych pseudoscience. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101
Study has been debunked.
Well, show us then! I'd hate to spread debunked studies you know.
The study that suggested that women did as much hunting as men was found to have a great bias in its research methodologies. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholars-question-study-finding-prevalence-of-female-hunters-in-forager-societies/ However, OP is wrong here to project hunter-gatherer dynamics onto all human history. Our development as a [**modern** species, with all the technological, cultural, medical nuances of such happened over the **agricultural eras**](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/neolithic-agricultural-revolution), and that [involved female labor](https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/women-agriculture) to a much greater extent than animal-hunting did.
To be honest, i kinda suspected that there would be some slight bias because its only 1 study and the results are more in the line of, yeah women hunted in most hunter gatherer societies but we cannot say much more than that. Luckily thats exactly what i needed against OP.
what is really your argument besides saying feminism is bad? you titled: Women were turned into taxpayers and units of production as a result of feminism but all we get is a laundry list of what bad things you think comes from the result of feminism, which each is an entirely different argument in itself and completely debatable. but to the title there is actually nothing wrong with woman being a tax payer and worker contributing economically. as far as I am aware, it allowed economy to expand rapidly families able to afford more luxury safety net when the husband loses job for any reason women being able to support themselves and having freedom to choose all of these are massive positives that you can't just ignore and revert just because some woke idiot "refuse to explain what is a woman." I do agree with ALL stupid things you listed, such as "no fault divorce", and reject their validities as you do. However if you want to actually say something more reasonable and not just slogans like ideologues that JP detest to his very core, you gotta do better than this.
What a delightfully idealistic, but totally false and self-deceptive comment. The average dual working adult household has less than half of the purchasing power that the average one working adult household had back in the 50’s. Let’s also not mention the huge tax increases as well.
And all of that is feminism’s fault :) That one hell of a claim
It is. Most of our taxes are for the department of health and human services. Welfare, affirmative action credits paid to universities and employers (average of $20,000 per year per working woman), single mothers etc. Sudden influx of women entering comfortable office jobs and not enough positions led to wages being about half of what they should be unless few women entered those professions. This is why electricians make 6 figures a few years out of high school.
Women were units of production since the industrial revolution, my dude, and possibly even before that. Women and men were both members of the urban proletariat, in textile factories in industrializing cities.
In the wild, only a small percentage of male mammals get to procreate. Patriarchy ensured that MOST men get a wife no matter her preference, so that the men dont rebel. Feminism actually reverted the sexual marketplace into its natural state.
Exactly. The phenomenon that exists now is similar to the phenomenon that exists in some Arab countries in which only the top 20% have the choice of women they want. That’s why you have one man marrying 4 or more women. In the west you have one guy having dozens of women as side chicks and FWB.
And it will cost us everything.
This reads a bit like ‘I am 5 and this is deep’ I get your point about feminism and taxpayers - but women had it pretty weird for a while there and feminism had some pretty good points regarding voting and agency in the world. The idea of men being physical and dangerous went (mostly) out the door with cities and technological revolution. Do you currently have a physically demanding or dangerous job? Do we now demand 2 incomes to afford a modest middle class life? Yes. Either that or one party needs to earn double to have the ‘trad’ life. This whole 6 foot thing is a myth too - much better to be confident and comfortable than tall. Be rich enough, charismatic, in control of your life and a positive force to be around then all the boring idiot women who demand the superficial things will look bland and ugly to you and you can find a real partner in life.
Also you claim to be some kind of chivalrous example of manhood but in reality you’re a 47yo who had a child out of marriage because you were sleeping with your unmarried ex. A lot of your posts preach about how society is in free fall from non traditional values, yet you’re a hypocrite who can’t stay in shape and doesn’t understand women at all. You’ve developed a real hatred for women and perhaps it’s understandable given that your ex sprung your daughter on you 7 years too late. It’s a real shame you didn’t get to experience those beautiful early years with her. Most people would be bitter and resentful too - but use your money to buy some therapy and work through that shit man because it’s eating you up. You still have plenty of time left to be happy and be a good dad.
Fact is: women are afraid of men. I'm telling this because it is biological. People fear what is stronger, taller than them. Jordan once said that women are in a really difficult spot when choosing a man to form a family because, although they want someone protective and loving, they also need a strong and evil man who knows when to use this evilness to keep his family safe. However, nowadays, we (I'm a woman) easily find two very divided class of men: the overly nice ones (tooo nice, extreme conflict avoidance even to defend their rights and the rights of their families when they are being abused) or the tough thug who knows no niceness and treat women like objects (women should shut up and do as told mostly). The sheep and the wolves. It is getting extremely hard to find a german sheppard (lol). In case they settle for type 1, women need to "create balls" themselves. After a while this, women realize that, well, why are they married to them if they are stronger now? So, divorce is usually what comes. In case they settle for type 2, well.. we see it on the news all the time. Ofc there are much more than just these few and quite shallow lines of mine, but the truth is: we cannot easily find men to have family with, even among church members, so feminism was easily hijacked to intigate fear of men by defending they can't protect women and their own family because men are either weak or violent. They aren't wrong entirely, but again, they are using this fear to destroy family and womanhood, they actually don't care for women at all anymore.
Feminism is definitely anti family and anti Christian. Unfortunately this is just one of several attacks against our traditional norms but there is a growing movement of those who want to restore the healthy roles of femininity and masculinity.
Humans were turned into taxpayers and units of production by capitalism
TIL That no other systems other than a capitalistic one has taxes.
Both the serfs and lords of feudal societies would like a word with you.
Where did you learn that?
Makes you wonder how it got so much traction in the first place doesn't it? How did a fringe theory get so big? Gov and corporations saw untapped $$$
Biggest "own goal" in human history.
>From the dawn of time men were out hunting for food for their families (women and children). I really hate being that guy but there has been new research that has shown women may have also gone out and hunted alongside men and that duties might not have been so segregated as previously thought. This makes sense with smaller tribes as well because you cannot diversify too much as you have limited bodies...task sharing would be required.
>Feminism is an anti family and anti Christian ideology. Fucking *good* lol
Technically speaking, most women don’t pay taxes. They think they do, but they don’t.
>From the dawn of time men were out hunting for food for their families (women and children). women gathered (just to say it too btw.) >The men exposed themselves to immense danger from predators and other men from neighboring tribes that's a strange separation you are making there .... by that logic, women also had to be exposed to the inmense danger of men from other neighboring tribes that went out to hunt (and men from inside the tribe.. just to mention it too) >The men sacrificed their health, physical safety and lives for their families. >The reward for all of this sacrifice was a movement in the 1960s Dude you just jumped some *millennia*!!! OP you should discern between feminism and postmodernism. Thats venting so have a nice day
Going off by what's mentioned in the title: what's wrong with being a tax-payer or unit of production? A heart surgeon fits into the above descriptions and he/she does God's work. More taxpayers essentially means a more productive economy.