26 minutes ago, ralis said:

‘That was an about face. Afraid of being banned?

Oh you're actually being a good friend to ilumairen and I respect that you look out for your friends, it's a good thing to do.

10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

My guess would be another attempt at emotional "flipping" and further manipulation. Then an expose for "the guys reading this" regarding how easy it is to feed female emotions towards manipulative goal. 

 

The issue is, once trust in open communication is betrayed where there is no emotional investment, there is simply no compelling reason to further involve oneself. 

 

If there is any sincerity to it, time will bear it out, although I remain doubtful given the saccharine tone. 

 

Thanks guys. Hope you have a good day. 

I swear I wouldn't do that, when I say something I mean it. You're 100% right it's like we've been saying all along and both understand, actions speak louder than words and healing wounds takes time. You're clearly someone who has a good head on her shoulders, and you dont take any bullshit. Intelligent, passionate, and thoughtful.

 

I also would never mean to emasculate your friends here or any of that insecure bullshit. They're clearly great guys and you obviously are someone who really values friendship and connections. 

Something I can see everyone here is passion about is Inequality. Inequality in all it's forms are so damaging and all good people of the world are fighting against it.

 

One often overlooked form of equality is in the dating market. It's why I'm so passionate about navigating dating dynamics.

 

Someyhing we have seen is the attractiveness, whether it be physical fertility signs which men are highly drawn to(replication signals), or social dominance which women are high drawn to(survival values), it distributed highly unequally in all societies

 

There is a principle called the pareto principle and some people believe it applies to dating and relationships 

 

We can see from data from online dating apps the distribution of sexual relationships is highly unequal. Some people have suggested that 20% of men are having sexual relations with 80% of women. I don't know the exact stats, but this article talks about the Gini coefficient 

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

"

The Data

As I stated previously the average female “likes” 12% of men on Tinder. This doesn't mean though that most males will get “liked” back by 12% of all the women they “like” on Tinder. This would only be the case if “likes” were equally distributed. In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men. We can see this trend in Figure 1. The area in blue represents the situations where women are more likely to “like” the men. The area in pink represents the situations where men are more likely to “like” women. The curve doesn’t go down linearly, but instead drops quickly after the top 20% of men. Comparing the blue area and the pink area we can see that for a random female/male Tinder interaction the male is likely to “like” the female 6.2 times more often than the female “likes” the male.

 

The Lorenz curve for the Tinder economy is lower than the curve for the US economy. This means that the inequality in Tinder wealth distribution is larger than the inequality of income in the US economy. One way economists quantify this difference is by comparing the Gini coefficient for different economies.

The Gini coefficient (Wikipedia link) is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality where everyone has the same income (damn commies) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality where one person has all the income and everyone else has zero income (let them eat cake). The United States currently has one of the higher Gini coefficients (most income inequality) of all of the world’s biggest economies at a value of 0.41. The Tinder Gini coefficient is even higher at 0.58. This may not seem like a big difference but it is actually huge. Figure 3 compares the income Gini coefficient distribution for 162 nations and adds the Tinder economy to the list. The United States Gini coefficient is higher than 62% of the world’s countries. The Tinder economy has a higher Gini coefficient than 95.1% of the countries in the world. The only countries that have a higher Gini coefficient than Tinder are Angola, Haiti, Botswana, Namibia, Comoros, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, and Seychelles (which I had never heard of before)."

 

 

 

ilumairen I appreciate your sincerity and grace you demonstrate. I feel like I really was acting like a cocky jerk, and really did go overboard. I never intended for this to get so heated, and in the heat of the moment I did let my passion and feelings get the best of me. I see that now and I do sinscerely apologize. You dserve all the best, and have the right to be heard, to speak for yourself, and your feelings are absolutely valid.

 

You're absolutely right, and I'm realizing that I'm not superior to any other human being on this earth. We're all here just trying to understand each other, live harmoniously, and make our way in this life. I appreciate you and your comments are more helpful to me than you know.

This is not a bad attempt at a last wind comeback though, I gotta respect you how hard you fight

3 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

 

It needs done, and since it needs done efficiency is in order.

 

 

 

 

This is another great example of how I flipped the frame on her. If you go back you'll see she was demanding me explain my motivations or something about household chores. What I did though is flip it around on her and now she is explaining her reasoning to me.

9 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Oh my stars!

 

So you view this discussion as some sort of battle where you're basically "holding your own"?

Ok so for the guys reading this. I'm gonna kind of break the 3rd wall here. Do you notice how in the beginning she was able to play it pretty cool. She was playing it very indifferent. She was like "you're a bore" etc.

 

This is the turning point in the interaction. 'Oh my stars!" You see I've now turned on her emotions, and the good thing about emotions is they can be flipped around. I got her to emotionally react and you can always work with emotions. Indifference though you cant do much with. So I flipped her into emotionality, which deep down she actually enjoys much more than indifference or bleh.

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

You are making inferences which is not logical, but proceeds from an incorrect conclusion. I thought men were rational and beyond that?

 

I didn't call you an asshole, but you surmised that I am. I would advise reading my posts more carefully before you leap into faulty summations of my arguments.

Yoi're losing it buddy, totally lost.

 

No one said men were so rational.or beyond anything.

 

And no one thought you called me an asshole. You did however say your town was full of assholes. This says more about you and your own social skills than it does about your hometown. 

 

Seriously though, contemplate and study my conversations and you might just learn to be more socially well adjusted and get along with people better.

Just now, ilumairen said:

 

Oh my stars!

 

So you view this discussion as some sort of battle where you're basically "holding your own"?

At this point more like kicking ass😁

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

Washington Examiner is a right wing news organization, based on lies, right wing ideology as seen in the above article. It comes off like a religious diatribe against women! Seriously shows where your mindset is toward women.

The best way to learn about someone is by interacting with them yourself and getting to know them.

Just now, ilumairen said:

If you are actually curious, my present emotion is amusement - which I would have assumed would be clear given the amount of laughing emoticons I've used here.

 

You don't have to try so hard. You don't need to post so many emoticons. It's ok. Don't worry you don't have to convince anyone of your emotional state.

6 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Since we're at the daobums, arguably a spiritual forum, I would suggest there are most likely men here whose happiness is also not dependent upon outward curcumstance. Recognition of the inner "source," and it's natural expression is something many aspire to. Perhaps you've simply met more women who are naturally in touch with this than men, and maybe some of the men here could share their own experience to help broaden your horizons. 

Honestly this post pretty much proves my point

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I grew up in a small town in Ohio full of assholes. I completely understand the mentality of patriarchal imperialism and the cause of problems dating back well before the Axial Age.

I'm sorry you were so hurt by your upbringing

 

You may be right. But perhaps you should look inside yourself. Usually when you believe everyone are assholes, usually you're the asshole.

 

Perhaps if you contemplate my posts more you can improve your social skills and get along better and understand others better.

1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

 

Since we're at the daobums, arguably a spiritual forum, I would suggest there are most likely men here whose happiness is also not dependent upon outward curcumstance. Recognition of the inner "source," and it's natural expression is something many aspire to. Perhaps you've simply met more women who are naturally in touch with this than men, and maybe some of the men here could share their own experience to help broaden your horizons. 

This is pure idealism, and I would suggest veering into outright fantasy

23 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

How much energy and effort are you imaging this bit of banter is expanding, and more to the point, why would you imagine this?

 

 

"Men Explain Things to Me" redux

 

 

This is entirely dependent on how you define, categorize, and envision both.

 

 

Define the terms. 

 

Would frustration and anger count as emotion? Would knowing the layout for easiest flow of household chores be logical? Where is the line between emotion and logic in navigating interpersonal relationships? And how do you rate your own response to the attractiveness of the females you are considering in the opening posts of this thread? Is this attraction only logical, or is their some underlying and perhaps unrecognized emotional component?

 

Attraction in the sense I use it, is initial attraction, so it's the biological instunctual part. After attraction comes connection, comfort, arousal, etc. These are separate things we can categorize more finely if you like.

 

Of course the layout of household chores is a logical process. As I mentioned before though, I 'm talking about motivation behind it. What's your motivation for cleaning your house?

 

Here's a good article touching on this

https://www-washingtonexaminer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/stop-telling-men-theyre-defective-women?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&_amp=true&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15871378364973&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fstop-telling-men-theyre-defective-women

"

One reason for the relentless male-bashing is that women have been taught to believe the sexes are the same and, as a result, assume that when men don't behave the way women do, men are somehow failing.

Take this article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Fairness in Housework Doesn't Mean 50/50." At first glance, it appears more even-handed than many other articles on the topic of how housework and childcare get divvied up between husbands and wives. But you can tell where the blame is headed at the opening of the essay, when the author, Eve Rodsky, recounts a story from an outing she took with her friends, all of whom are married with kids.

 

Apparently, all the women received a text or a phone call from their husbands (although actually, some of the calls were from mothers-in-law or babysitters, thus negating Rodsky's argument that it’s an issue of male ineptitude) who were calling to get their wives’ input on whatever it was they were trying to manage at home.

“Why doesn’t ‘equal’ ever seem to work when it comes to sharing family duties in our household?” asks Rodsky. “Women would feel less overwhelmed by doing the majority of domestic duties if men fully ‘owned’ those tasks they do take on.”

 

Or here’s another article, this time about research that shows the more wives earn, the rockier their marriages tend to be. Rather than study the complex reasons for this, the author makes numerous references to men’s “egos” and the notion that society’s backward attitudes are to blame:

“When wives earn more than their husbands, some men just can't handle it.”

“Even in 2019, old-fashioned views on marriage prevail.”

“Oh, how fragile is the ego of a man. We must never let him feel like a bonsai in a grove of California redwoods—no, he must always see himself as a towering tree, magnificent in comparison with his female partner.”

This bitter condescension toward men is unfounded, not to mention counterproductive. No relationship can flourish when one partner views the other with such disdain.

Men and women do not parent the same way because they’re not interchangeable beings. If your husband needs help managing the home front, it’s not because he’s not “owning” the task. Most men are simply not as invested as most women in the details of what goes on at home, nor do they spend as much time inside of it. Moreover, men’s brains are more linear or single-focused, so they’re not going to multitask as well as women. And it’s unfair to expect them to.

Men also do a boatload of housework and children-related tasks that rarely, if ever, get mentioned. It is mostly husbands who take care of yard work, the gutters, basement cleaning and leaks, car maintenance, the driveway, the roof, and running the children around to their sporting events. None of that even touches upon the "Honey Do" lists wives give their husbands: Fixing all house repairs, hanging TVs, changing the filter, picking up the dead mice or other vermin, putting up Halloween and Christmas decorations, fireplace cleaning, assembling new furniture, and painting the house

 

Bottom line: Men are not defective women. But that’s what the culture teaches through films, television (even commercials!), and articles. Sadly, this belief system has seeped into women’s souls, causing them to believe men are weak or lazy when they don’t do things the way women do them or when they don’t react the way women react.

Women who harbor this mindset will never be successful in love. Only women who understand the unique nature of men, who don't blame men whenever something goes wrong, who harbor compassion rather than resentment toward men, and who are able to bring out the best in men will ultimately win at love.

 

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Actually, your narrative is naive and informed by male patriarchal propaganda. You will not win this argument!

I dunno man, I'm doing pretty good against all of you so far, I'm a pretty clever guy. We'll see.

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

You pretend to know what my qualifications are? Good luck with that!  

You're the unknowable, mystical, mystery😂

1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

"Men Explain Things to Me" redux

 

This is a conversation. It's a two way thing, it takes two parties, to be ...you know, interactive. That's the whole point. I said explicate, not not talk down to or whatever. Don't feel so attacked🙂

5 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Now you are playing psychologist with no qualifications except some sort of New Age patriarchal bullshit belief system.

While I don't feel much need to qualify to you, I did qualify the context perfectly adequately for the scope of your own qualifications in this discussion here with me when I said "if you interact with them a lot, and pay close attention"

 

If you insist though I suppose I could post more real life examples in practice 

Just now, ralis said:

 

Men in the context of religion, politics, xenophobia are responsible for most every war. War is neither rational or logical!

 

Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Alexander, Napoleon, The Papacy, USA under male presidents, European Kings and so forth. 

No one's arguing that men or women are always rational in practice.

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

 

How is that negative? I'm reporting a thing that actually happened. You're the lot complaining how you're oh-so-oppressed by multiculturalism, women having these awful "rights" thingies, etc.

You just live in your little world too where you make things up to be however you want too!👌

3 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

I value entertainment, and you're as boring as reruns of Gilligan's Island. 

😂😂

 

Ok decent. I'll give you +1 cool points for that one.

There is a difference in how Men and Women think though if you interact with them a lot and pay close attention. 

 

Men's emotions follows their logic. Women's logic follows their emotion.

 

So a man would typically make a statement like this..."Things are good, therefore I feel good."

 

But for a woman a statement that would make a lot more sense would be something more like...."I feel good, therefore things are good."

 

2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

A man who has found his niche and audience - predominantly among incels and men feeling dejected by women having rights to make their own choices and speak for themselves. 

 

:yawn:

That's a stereotype and it's not true. Go to one of his speeches, he packs high end classy venues, and you'll see a lot of couples dressed extremely nicely. More like men in fancy suits and women in Pearls and high heels

 

3 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

I had a co-worker who taped a print-out of Peterson's stupid rules on his work computer. Despite it being an incredibly easy but well-paying job, and the boss being extremely patient and kind, he got fired after about a month; the guy called out almost every other day so he could get stoned and play X-Box or whatever; when he did show up, he would be watching KKK and other white supremacist videos half the time and showing them to everyone. Also his favorite band was Oasis. Good grief.

You definitely are a negative guy! You just  like bashing everything and everyone, oh man you're too much I love it.