re: Boy Crisis of 2025, Meet the ‘Boy Problem’ of the 1900s

quote:

---

I’d love to know the thought process that got you to that conclusion.

---

You quoted a post by me asking the poster to describe a time he actually experienced being told he had to be around women. You responded with “the military.”

Were you answering on his behalf? I could only assume you were describing a time you wanted to be around only men and were told you had to be around women too.

quote:

---

We let it happen, though.

---

quote:

---

Which specific fact are you disputing? Men don’t comprise most of government? Men don’t own/run most businesses? Or men don’t possess most of the capital in the world? Which are you claiming is incorrect?

---

This question is answered in detail in the post.

What am I supposed to conclude when you do this sort of thing? I only can see three choices:

1. You didn't read it

2. Your reading comprehension is very poor

3. You are pretending to not understand so as to mischaracterize what I'm saying

I don't really want to assume the 2nd. I've seen you do the third many times. You just did it to Roger in the previous page.

But in the spirit of charity I'm going with the first.

quote:

---

My theory is that the US lost many of the best of the best men in WWII, and that shallowed the (white) gene pool significantly. Many of those young men that were among the most physically gifted, and had leadership ability, were often the ones killed.

---

The US “only” lost like 400K killed in WWII. Compared to the rest of the world we took very light casualties

quote:

---

You may agree with that opinion, disagree with it, or have no opinion on it. That's your subjective prerogative. But objectively, there's really no way to characterize that as a "moderate" opinion.

---

For now….

quote:

---

The US “only” lost like 400K killed in WWII. Compared to the rest of the world we took very light casualties

---

You may do what you want, of course, but if I were you I would just ignore those posts like they never happened.

quote:

---

For now….

---

Yes, in the context of the current political climate.

In the context of the societal climate of 1840, giving women the right to vote would have been the radical position.

Like in the movie Lincoln when someone suggested that allowing black men to vote would eventually lead to women voting and everyone laughed at the idea.

quote:

---

You support the illegal immigrant invasion of America

---

. No I don't, but they'll outwork you.

quote:

---

People who are 20-24 right now spent all their adolescent years hearing about "toxic masculinity"

---

Everytime I hear this term, I think of that 2-bit phony lesbian soccer player who had her "15 minutes of fame" a few years ago. That stupid POS couldnt open her mouth without uttering the term "toxic masculinity."

I'm glad she finally got too old to play and lost her platform. At least, I know that I haven't even heard her name mentioned in at least the past 2-3 years.

PS - I'd be interested to see the breakdown between white men and minority men. A minority male, especially a black male, still falls under the umbrella of political correctness by virtue of race.

But, it's 100% open-season on white males, unless theyre homosexual.

quote:

---

I disagree that your post supports your claims.

---

Then I guess you're not very intelligent. That's the only option I have left to me.

quote:

---

Business equity is not the only form of capital.

---

Never said it was. Those were listed as two different points (because YOU listed them as two different points and I was responding to you). You claimed that men own the businesses (one point) and men have all the capital (a separate point). I gave you statistics on the first one and the second one is self-evident in the popular phrase, "The 1%."

quote:

---

My reading comprehension is fine.

---

It's really not. See above.

quote:

---

You are using an extremely specific and limited data point to justify a very sweeping generalization.

---

No, that's exactly what YOU are doing. That's the whole point.

What you're doing is the direct equivalent of making this statement:

"Teachers abuse students."

And I am saying "Teachers" do not abuse students, a very small percentage of teachers abuse students.


You are the one generalizing to all men. I'm arguing the opposite.

quote:

---

Men have made up our government either entirely or primarily since we’ve had a government.

---

Well, teachers have sexually abused students for as long as there's been schools. That's just a fact.

quote:

---

What does this even mean?

---

Don't act like a simpleton, you know exactly what it means.

Feminism is a very specific ideology and ideologies that are widely accepted influence behavior and this particular ideology has inspired behavior and beliefs that have resulted in both men and women becoming less happy in a society in which they should be much happier than anybody who ever lived before them.

quote:

---

You keep talking about women claiming they are the same as men but this is not a talking point I’ve ever seen a woman espouse

---

Then you know nothing about feminism. I suggest you read Simone DeBouvior's seminal feminist tome "The Second Sex," which is widely considered to be the line of demarcation between 1st and 2nd wave feminism. Because the philosophy that directly led to this:

quote:

---

mentally ill trans people which is a very small and fringe segment of the population (despite the large amount of attention given to them here).

---

Had it's genesis in that book. Her central premise is that gender is nothing but a social construct. It laid the foundation for exactly the nonsense we see today.

And Marxism has been intertwined with feminism since its inception. You can see it in your idiotic and completely unfounded statement below that I think women are slaves.

Seriously, if you don't know those things, you really have no business discussing feminism.

quote:

---

What did the men do?

---

Exactly what you claim men do here. Worked outside the home but largely not inside it, while women did both.

quote:

---

You’re missing the point by arguing against socialism even though I haven’t made a single post advocating for a socialist government or economic system.

---

I didn't argue against socialism. What I did was show that your oft-repeated argument that capitalism has caused life in 2025 to be misery (which is populist bullshite and asinine on it's face—we have a higher standard of living, more free time, less racism, more equality, more civil rights, better health care, more amusements, and fewer poor people than any society before us in the history of the world) is crap.

It had nothing to do with socialism except that socialism is something other than capitalism, yet the same patterns (that YOU brought up) existed, and the only common denominator was feminism.

quote:

---

We exist to do what men require us to do and nothing more.

---

I see we've reached the point at which you are going to actively mischaracterize and straw man what I am saying. i have literally said nothing to justify that claim and several things that oppose it.

I likely will not respond to you beyond this post as experience tells me that it will only get worse from here as your losing the argument becomes more and more apparent and you therefore become more and more desperate and less and less honest.

quote:

---

If women are required to work outside the home, that doesn’t mean they are absolved from any of the responsibilities of parenting their children and husbands and keeping everything clean and the fridge stocked.

---

Yeah. That's what happened in Soviet Russia too. Because feminism. Not because of any corporatism or capitalism...that was the point of that quote and comparison.

Not that it will do any good, but I will directly connect the dots for you.

Men are genetically optimized to handle the functions necessary for the function of the family outside the home. Women are genetically optimized to handle the functions necessary for the function of the family inside the home.

When you convince women that they are being oppressed and missing out because they don't get to occupy the functions that men are genetically optimized to occupy, they will, of course, force the square peg into the round hole.

Men, on the other hand, are not being convinced that they are being oppressed and missing out because they don't occupy the functions that women are genetically optimized to occupy. Oh, maybe a few soi bois here or there who wish they could breastfeed, but in general that's not happening.

See, men don't care so much if the garbage stinks or the bathroom is dirty or they only have lunchmeat and popcorn for dinner. The average guy will keep living in that kind of environment indefinitely without thinking about it too much if the alternative is that he has to pay attention to it.

Because our focus is genetically optimized to keep us looking outside the house. So without the motivation of having been convinced we're being oppressed for not cleaning the bathroom and making sure the curtains in the den are clean, we're not gong to jump up and start homemaking to standards that the average woman finds acceptable. It's just not going to happen.

So what would you think the logical outcome of that scenario would be?

I would think it is exactly what we see.

quote:

---

Your 900 word post about how powerless men are just proves that men are incapable of accepting responsibility for anything.

---

Well, if hat's your conclusion I appreciate you letting me know that you refuse to be reasonable in this discussion and that you intend to dishonestly mischaracterize what I post (as usual); I will respond accordingly.

I apologize for taxing your apparently anemic female attention span with the length of my post. I do that to try to clear up any confusion and minimize the possibility of mischaracterization, but you are correct.

When the mischaracterization is deliberate on your part, extra exposition, context, and examples are of no use.