Are men jealous of women?

[Immanuel Can]

It was always obvious that you were a woman-hating c***

Are you saying it's not true? Are you saying that women have never hurt you? Congratulations: you're the first woman on earth never to be hurt by other women.

Or are you trying to express that wonderful "love for all men equally and unconditionally"?

It's so hard to tell, sometimes.

No. I'm saying your hatred for women oozes out of you.

...says the most spiteful woman on this board.

Projection. I don't "hate" anybody, and certainly not women. But everybody sees the spitefulness of your replies. And I've often wondered how you suppose they see you, as a result: do you suppose they are more inclined to approve your opinions because you spit abuse at them? Or do you think you're bullying them into compliance? I'm really not sure what you expect.

You would do much better by behaving rationally and foregoing abuse. But I suspect this invitation to civility will receive just another doubling-down on abuse, some pointless stream of invective that I will once again ignore. That is always what has happened before, when I've suggested more civility to you.

Still, here's good advice: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the axiom goes. You could be a much more serious contributor, and much more appreciated, regardless of the positions you took, if you learned not to spout venom.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody who's lived with any group of women for any length of time, male or female, is going to believe you.

No one has to believe me.

Well, that's going to work out well for you, then.

[Immanuel Can]

IC even thought Fairy was a guy. Because the name Fairy is sometimes known as a gay guy.

So...let me get this "straight."

If I were to assume your gender from reading your posts, I'd be a bigot. But if I don't know you're a woman from your posts, I'm irrational?

And you think MY mind works in "strange" ways?

[Atla]

If that's what you figured out, then yes, it's what you have projected.

You couldn't say something sane if your life depended on it, huh

You are projecting again.

No I'm not

[Fairy]

Women are very rarely incels.

Even old, obese, and hideously ugly women can still get some casual sex from a man somewhere.

Therefore, getting sex from a man, is not a flex for a woman.

Almost every woman can get it.

Then men are rarely incels because men can still be getting sex from an old, obese, and hideously ugly woman. Every man can get sex that way, young or old.

[Fairy]

You couldn't say something sane if your life depended on it, huh

You are projecting again.

No I'm not

Yes you are.

[Atla]

You are projecting again.

No I'm not

Yes you are.

No I'm not That's just your remarkably idiotic metaphysics speaking.

[Fairy]

IC even thought Fairy was a guy. Because the name Fairy is sometimes known as a gay guy.

So...let me get this "straight."

If I were to assume your gender from reading your posts, I'd be a bigot. But if I don't know you're a woman from your posts, I'm irrational?

And you think MY mind works in "strange" ways?

That's what you wrote, you assumed Fairy was a man. You made a character assessment of someone you don't actually know, you just assumed I was a man based on your assumption of what you believed the word Fairy meant to you. So yes, your assumption about a poster's username would make you a bigot. You cannot know whether a poster is a man or a woman until they actually tell you what they are, until they tell you, you can only guess what they are, which may or may not be right. If I hadn't have told you I am a woman, you would have just carried on believing I am a man.

That's the problem of thinking we know who we are talking to on this forum. We do not actually know who we are talking to on a forum unless the username is a male or female name, but even then we can't even be certain we are talking to a man or a woman ..because a woman can be using a mans name for all anyone knows, and a man can be using a woman's name for all anyone knows. . .we just keep assuming we know someone without ever knowing the real person behind the writing or the name. We simply do not know who we are talking to. Until we actually meet them in real-time actual physical proximity one on one, face to face. So until then, you might just as well be talking to Minnie Mouse for all you know about them. And that goes for what the character is writing, what they are writing might not necessarily reflect the real true person that is writing, whatever it is they are writing about.

[Fairy]

No I'm not

Yes you are.

No I'm not That's just your remarkably idiotic metaphysics speaking.

Yes you are, to think otherwise is just your remarkably idiotic metaphysics speaking.

You are projecting.

Wait for the echo.

[Atla]

Yes you are.

No I'm not That's just your remarkably idiotic metaphysics speaking.

Yes you are, to think otherwise is just your remarkably idiotic metaphysics speaking.

You are projecting.

Wait for the echo.

You're simply insane, deal with it.

[Immanuel Can]

IC even thought Fairy was a guy. Because the name Fairy is sometimes known as a gay guy.

So...let me get this "straight."

If I were to assume your gender from reading your posts, I'd be a bigot. But if I don't know you're a woman from your posts, I'm irrational?

And you think MY mind works in "strange" ways?

That's what you wrote, you assumed Fairy was a man.

And why not? Are you saying that fairies can't be men?

You made a character assessment

Sex. Not character...unless you mean to imply that male fairies are of dubious character...Do you?

Nice try. Just as lame as your other "efforts" to find evidence.

[godelian]

Then men are rarely incels because men can still be getting sex from an old, obese, and hideously ugly woman. Every man can get sex that way, young or old.

An incel is actually a (young) man chasing a pipe dream. An incel wants to talk a girl typically of similar age into becoming his girlfriend and into having sex with him; with no money or other benefits changing hands. However, that is something that is no longer readily available these days for the average (young) man with merely average looks and merely average income.

This expectation was actually realistic between 1970 and 2010, even for the (young) man with average looks and income. The period 1970-2010 was the golden age for that kind of long-running boyfriend-girlfriend arrangements in your early twenties.

Before 1970, however, it usually did not work like that. The situation had to somehow lead to marriage quite quickly. Otherwise, the girl would avoid sex altogether.

Since 2010, it no longer works like that. At a younger age, girls no longer value the prospect of marriage particularly much. They delay serious relationships until their late twenties or early thirties. So, since it is all just for fun, the man has to be highly attractive to her, while the average man obviously is not, because he is just average.

In fact, there are lots of alternatives for the incel to get sex anyway, but he does not even want to consider them. He insists that he wants the old system to work for him. He simply does not want to adapt.

This new system also leads to problems for the girls. When they start looking for serious relationships in their late twenties or early thirties, they often cannot find one. A man in his thirties does not see why he would suddenly have to prioritize serious relationships based on someone else's agenda. He is perfectly fine without a serious relationship.

[accelafine]

Are you saying it's not true? Are you saying that women have never hurt you? Congratulations: you're the first woman on earth never to be hurt by other women.

Or are you trying to express that wonderful "love for all men equally and unconditionally"?

It's so hard to tell, sometimes.

No. I'm saying your hatred for women oozes out of you.

...says the most spiteful woman on this board.

Projection. I don't "hate" anybody, and certainly not women. But everybody sees the spitefulness of your replies. And I've often wondered how you suppose they see you, as a result: do you suppose they are more inclined to approve your opinions because you spit abuse at them? Or do you think you're bullying them into compliance? I'm really not sure what you expect.

You would do much better by behaving rationally and foregoing abuse. But I suspect this invitation to civility will receive just another doubling-down on abuse, some pointless stream of invective that I will once again ignore. That is always what has happened before, when I've suggested more civility to you.

Still, here's good advice: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the axiom goes. You could be a much more serious contributor, and much more appreciated, regardless of the positions you took, if you learned not to spout venom.

Like I need advice from the forum liar. The abusive one is you. Lying is abuse. Smarmy, passive-aggressive insults are abuse. Hypocrisy is abuse. It seems to me that the forum is fairly united in its dislike of you, apart from the obvious exceptions.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I'm saying your hatred for women oozes out of you.

...says the most spiteful woman on this board.

Projection. I don't "hate" anybody, and certainly not women. But everybody sees the spitefulness of your replies. And I've often wondered how you suppose they see you, as a result: do you suppose they are more inclined to approve your opinions because you spit abuse at them? Or do you think you're bullying them into compliance? I'm really not sure what you expect.

You would do much better by behaving rationally and foregoing abuse. But I suspect this invitation to civility will receive just another doubling-down on abuse, some pointless stream of invective that I will once again ignore. That is always what has happened before, when I've suggested more civility to you.

Still, here's good advice: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the axiom goes. You could be a much more serious contributor, and much more appreciated, regardless of the positions you took, if you learned not to spout venom.

Like I need advice from the forum liar.

See...I knew that would be your reaction. You don't even understand when somebody's doing you a kindness.

[accelafine]

...says the most spiteful woman on this board.

Projection. I don't "hate" anybody, and certainly not women. But everybody sees the spitefulness of your replies. And I've often wondered how you suppose they see you, as a result: do you suppose they are more inclined to approve your opinions because you spit abuse at them? Or do you think you're bullying them into compliance? I'm really not sure what you expect.

You would do much better by behaving rationally and foregoing abuse. But I suspect this invitation to civility will receive just another doubling-down on abuse, some pointless stream of invective that I will once again ignore. That is always what has happened before, when I've suggested more civility to you.

Still, here's good advice: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the axiom goes. You could be a much more serious contributor, and much more appreciated, regardless of the positions you took, if you learned not to spout venom.

Like I need advice from the forum liar.

See...I knew that would be your reaction. You don't even understand when somebody's doing you a kindness.

Gee, how long have you been lurking and waiting for that? You don't have a kind bone in your body. You barely come across as human.