Are men jealous of women?

[accelafine]

Women have largely been oppressed with the backing of governments and society for millennia, still are in many places on earth.

That is a misleading exercise in historical revisionism.

Men have historically always provided for women, often with great effort and even at the risk of their own lives.

Women in past generations certainly understood this. They were generally grateful to their husbands for going to great lengths in taking care of their families.

Modern women should not talk on behalf of women in past generations. These women were traditional. They did not think like modern women. Nowadays, there are still lots of traditional women, especially outside the West. That is why modern women should only talk on behalf of modern women. Traditional women are perfectly able to talk for themselves.

They like the deal. We like the deal. So, where is the problem?

I see what you mean, and I must say, now that you mention this, I have to agree, actually. So thanks for your comment.

I missed that pile of dog-shit from 'godelian'. He seems to base the experience of women on 1950s American sitcoms. Women have ALWAYS fended for themselves because men can't be depended on and are a danger to them for the most part. Human history is full of women bringing up children on their own, trying desperately to keep them and themselves alive. I was doing family genealogy for a while and just my own ancestral records are full of these women with large broods of children and no 'white knight' around 'providing for them' and being someone that 'godelian' thinks they should be eternally grateful to. Fuck knows how they did it. Some were found in the workhouse via census records. How does 'godelian' think women managed when men just took off, leaving them with half a dozen children or more, or went off to have fun in their wars, or drank themselves to death??
So fuck godelian and his shallow bullshit. Men are NOT people that women can, or should, depend on. Not by a mile.

[Fairy]

That is a misleading exercise in historical revisionism.

Men have historically always provided for women, often with great effort and even at the risk of their own lives.

Women in past generations certainly understood this. They were generally grateful to their husbands for going to great lengths in taking care of their families.

Modern women should not talk on behalf of women in past generations. These women were traditional. They did not think like modern women. Nowadays, there are still lots of traditional women, especially outside the West. That is why modern women should only talk on behalf of modern women. Traditional women are perfectly able to talk for themselves.

They like the deal. We like the deal. So, where is the problem?

I see what you mean, and I must say, now that you mention this, I have to agree, actually. So thanks for your comment.

I missed that pile of dog-shit from 'godelian'. He seems to base the experience of women on 1950s American sitcoms. Women have ALWAYS fended for themselves because men can't be depended on and are a danger to them for the most part. Human history is full of women bringing up children on their own, trying desperately to keep them and themselves alive. I was doing family genealogy for a while and just my own ancestral records are full of these women with large broods of children and no 'white knight' around 'providing for them' and being someone that 'godelian' thinks they should be eternally grateful to. Fuck knows how they did it. Some were found in the workhouse via census records. How does 'godelian' think women managed when men just took off, leaving them with half a dozen children or more, or went off to have fun in their wars, or drank themselves to death??
So fuck godelian and his shallow bullshit. Men are NOT people that women can, or should, depend on. Not by a mile.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. You are right too of course, I agree.

I guess both men and women somehow have the capacity to fend for themselves in this world, no problem, and that they do not actually need each other to survive, we all share the same capacity to have a guilty conscience. I don't believe any one of us intentionally means to harm or hurt or damage other people, no more than we would hurt, harm or damage our own-self, and that seems to be what makes us able to survive as long as we have done so far, in human evolution. I've always known that anyway.

But I'm thinking here more about the institution of marriage that seemed to be put into law and place to protect children. And so marriage became a mutually consenting pact to join together so that any offspring that did result from such a union were protected. IDK, I could be totally off track.

It just seems then, that all modern marriages today are doomed. And maybe all the marriages of the past were simply just being tolerated and endured for the sake of the holy vow, as if they were afraid of breaking some holy law, and being aware that their sin for breaking their vow, would have serious consequences, which involved punishment based on the breaking of the holy covenant. To make our purity, dirty, so to speak.

[accelafine]

I see what you mean, and I must say, now that you mention this, I have to agree, actually. So thanks for your comment.

I missed that pile of dog-shit from 'godelian'. He seems to base the experience of women on 1950s American sitcoms. Women have ALWAYS fended for themselves because men can't be depended on and are a danger to them for the most part. Human history is full of women bringing up children on their own, trying desperately to keep them and themselves alive. I was doing family genealogy for a while and just my own ancestral records are full of these women with large broods of children and no 'white knight' around 'providing for them' and being someone that 'godelian' thinks they should be eternally grateful to. Fuck knows how they did it. Some were found in the workhouse via census records. How does 'godelian' think women managed when men just took off, leaving them with half a dozen children or more, or went off to have fun in their wars, or drank themselves to death??
So fuck godelian and his shallow bullshit. Men are NOT people that women can, or should, depend on. Not by a mile.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. You are right too of course, I agree.

I guess both men and women somehow have the capacity to fend for themselves in this world, no problem, and that they do not actually need each other to survive, we all share the same capacity to have a guilty conscience. I don't believe any one of us intentionally means to harm or hurt or damage other people, no more than we would hurt, harm or damage our own-self, and that seems to be what makes us able to survive as long as we have done so far, in human evolution. I've always known that anyway.

But I'm thinking here more about the institution of marriage that seemed to be put into law and place to protect children. And so marriage became a mutually consenting pact to join together so that any offspring that did result from such a union were protected. IDK, I could be totally off track.

It just seems then, that all modern marriages today are doomed. And maybe all the marriages of the past were simply just being tolerated and endured for the sake of the holy vow, as if they were afraid of breaking some holy law, and being aware that their sin for breaking their vow, would have serious consequences, which involved punishment based on the breaking of the holy covenant. To make our purity, dirty, so to speak.

That's not what marriage was for It was more about 'ownership' of women. Essentially some man paying another man to take the 'burdensome' female offspring off his hands, hence the 'dowry' and father 'giving away' the bride.
And no, women can't successfully fend for themselves which is why they ended up dying young along with their children and had to put up with the most appalling abuse from their 'saviour' husbands. You and I are the result of the tiny minority of children who actually survived to adulthood.

[godelian]

If there was no problem in the past.... is there a problem in modern relationships today?

Well, in modern times, men are not interested in "oppressing" women by providing for them. That is one of the 167 reasons why it is sheer impossible for a modern woman to extract commitment out of a man.

He simply won't do it.

A man does not owe any commitment to a woman. She has to deserve it, and most simply don't.

I'm thinking that today, for most men and women, for those who have jointly realised they are in love with each other

Marriage has never revolved around love. It has always been a matter of duty. Similarly, morality has never revolved around human rights. It has always been a matter of human obligations.

Love is at best an occasional bonus.

Modern ideology is a concoction of inconsistent heresies and outright depravities. It has never worked and will never work.

In modern times, men and women are ideologically incompatible. Men are mostly traditional while women are modern, but only when it suits them. Otherwise, they are quick to insist on traditional privileges.

[accelafine]

Ugh. From the self-confessed incel woman-hater who knows zilch about women. I suppose he categorises himself as one of the 'nice guys' he claims women ignore because they are 'too nice' No wonder I had him on ignore.

[godelian]

Men are NOT people that women can, or should, depend on. Not by a mile.

In that case, then don't.
Seriously, where is the problem?
We don't even want modern women to depend on us
So, what are you even talking about?

We carry on with traditional women and you carry on with your cats and boxed wine.

[accelafine]

Such a misogynistic wanker. No wonder women are repulsed by you.

[godelian]

Such a misogynistic wanker. No wonder women are repulsed by you.

Traditional women are fond of me.

Furthermore, it's exactly the other way around. Men are repulsed by you. That is why you cannot possibly keep one.

Hence, in your case, it is obvious that you should indeed not count on any man for any purpose.

[accelafine]

Ok, Mr. self-confessed incel. I don't know what exactly a 'traditional woman' is. I don't think I've come across one of those

[godelian]

Ok, Mr. self-confessed incel. I don't know what exactly a 'traditional woman' is. I don't think I've come across one of those

I'm sitting next to one, right now.

She is a stunning Asian beauty. The whole country is full of traditional women. These women don't want to take care of themselves. They want a man to do that.

Look, feel free to be a strong, independent woman who doesn't need a man. Seriously, nobody is going to stop you.

[accelafine]

FFS

[accelafine]

Such a cliche. Ugly fat Western man complains that Western women dislike him because they aren't 'traditional' (of course it wouldn't have anything to do with him being repulsive) so buys a 'traditional' mail-order prostitute from Asia They make TV documentaries about that. 'Funny' how attractive men never seem to have any trouble finding women and don't have to order them online from a poverty-stricken country

[godelian]

Such a cliche. Ugly fat Western man complains that Western women dislike him because they aren't 'traditional' (of course it wouldn't have anything to do with him being repulsive) so buys a 'traditional' mail-order prostitute from Asia They make TV documentaries about that. 'Funny' how attractive men never seem to have any trouble finding women and don't have to order them online from a poverty-stricken country

I get exactly what I want, i.e. a stunningly beautiful woman by my side, while you are also getting exactly what you have asked for, i.e. cats and boxed wine. You did not want to depend on a man, and indeed, you do not have one to depend on. So, what are you complaining about?

Furthermore, men do not care about the money of a woman. A woman does not spend her money on a man anyway. Therefore, yes, a woman can even be dirt poor and poverty-stricken. That is not a deal breaker for us. Never has been. Never will be.

[Fairy]

I missed that pile of dog-shit from 'godelian'. He seems to base the experience of women on 1950s American sitcoms. Women have ALWAYS fended for themselves because men can't be depended on and are a danger to them for the most part. Human history is full of women bringing up children on their own, trying desperately to keep them and themselves alive. I was doing family genealogy for a while and just my own ancestral records are full of these women with large broods of children and no 'white knight' around 'providing for them' and being someone that 'godelian' thinks they should be eternally grateful to. Fuck knows how they did it. Some were found in the workhouse via census records. How does 'godelian' think women managed when men just took off, leaving them with half a dozen children or more, or went off to have fun in their wars, or drank themselves to death??
So fuck godelian and his shallow bullshit. Men are NOT people that women can, or should, depend on. Not by a mile.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. You are right too of course, I agree.

I guess both men and women somehow have the capacity to fend for themselves in this world, no problem, and that they do not actually need each other to survive, we all share the same capacity to have a guilty conscience. I don't believe any one of us intentionally means to harm or hurt or damage other people, no more than we would hurt, harm or damage our own-self, and that seems to be what makes us able to survive as long as we have done so far, in human evolution. I've always known that anyway.

But I'm thinking here more about the institution of marriage that seemed to be put into law and place to protect children. And so marriage became a mutually consenting pact to join together so that any offspring that did result from such a union were protected. IDK, I could be totally off track.

It just seems then, that all modern marriages today are doomed. And maybe all the marriages of the past were simply just being tolerated and endured for the sake of the holy vow, as if they were afraid of breaking some holy law, and being aware that their sin for breaking their vow, would have serious consequences, which involved punishment based on the breaking of the holy covenant. To make our purity, dirty, so to speak.

That's not what marriage was for It was more about 'ownership' of women. Essentially some man paying another man to take the 'burdensome' female offspring off his hands, hence the 'dowry' and father 'giving away' the bride.
And no, women can't successfully fend for themselves which is why they ended up dying young along with their children and had to put up with the most appalling abuse from their 'saviour' husbands. You and I are the result of the tiny minority of children who actually survived to adulthood.

It all sounds so bleak. Were women even allowed to own their own property. Were they even in a position to earn enough money to buy their own home, and so had to be dependent on men?

[Atla]

Ok, Mr. self-confessed incel. I don't know what exactly a 'traditional woman' is. I don't think I've come across one of those

I'm sitting next to one, right now.

She is a stunning Asian beauty. The whole country is full of traditional women. These women don't want to take care of themselves. They want a man to do that.

Look, feel free to be a strong, independent woman who doesn't need a man. Seriously, nobody is going to stop you.

If she's so awesome then don't make her uncomfortable by sitting next to her on the bus. She doesn't like it.