Yeah, too bad there isn't a website that understand this issue, and has never had like counts, and whose participants largely deride the idea of like counts-and have for a long, long time.
Wow I'm sure everyone can experience the exact same unique circumstances! all it takes is a few choices! there's nothing wrong with the fundamental structure of things! just follow my survivor's fallacy!
What do you expect, you delusional borderline psychopath. You have zero empathy, apparently. Why wouldn't they do things like that? They barely make enough to live. The whole system has told them they are barely worth anything. Why would they behave? Why are 2/3 of workers even decent, is the real question.
and what are the second-order and third-order consequences of abolishing gender roles? do we think every civlization set them up because they were all simultaneously bumbling and monstrous? was it a conicidence that they all succeeded, while others didn't, and in fact any civilization that gave women more freedom quickly fell into chaos? Rome, near the fall, was said to have been 'ruled by women', and as the Arab Empire began to allow women to be teachers and preachers and clerks, they quickly descended into disorder. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. It was just a conspiracy, on a grand scale, no doubt. Patriarchy is oppression, after all, like the hierarchy mentioned in the article.
Could, say, certain groups of people be more predisposed to easily learning, for example, complex math, or more disposed to certain types of behaviors than other groups of people?
It's not like that. I understand your instinct is to be condescending towards men, which is sad - and to be honest, I agree, the rant is missing the point.
Chances are those women are all having casual sex with a smaller number of attractive/high status males. Those lonely men typically want to "date", while the women - if the man isn't high status, wealthy, AND displaying the mental fitness which is counter-indicated by these 'rants' - would much rather sleep around with men who are far more attractive than them (or, younger!) but never have a real relationship.
Was she unemployed or low income at the time? Does she currently make more money than you? Were you ambitious, and display that ambition to impress her? Having a humble wife is fortunate, yes, but it really is all relative.
Because SHE CAN MAKE HER OWN MONEY. That's why. How do you not see that? And status doesn't always equate to money, yet status is what is selected for, not money, exactly. Money is just a status symbol. Women who make enough money to not need a man often STILL select based on wealth.
It's women, not technology, not anything else. I know this might be downvoted to oblivion, but I have to say it, so at least the truth is where it needs to be.
>I learned another big lesson from this. I now never help people who don’t ask me for help, and even then I only help them to the extent that they ask. I also look for ways that I can help that don’t compromise my own position, and that require the least outlay of my money, time, and effort.
Okay. Had a bad experience = never help people unless they beg me for it. And later, of course, he mentions how troubling it can be to have people ask rich people for money.
The kind of people who make money often don't seem to be the kind of self-aware, self-growth oriented kinds of people. They're workers, to put it bluntly. They're people who work, and that's what they're born to do. Once they have money they kind of lose their minds, because suddenly they don't have to work, and no one is telling them what to do anymore.
Do you like how he listed his beautiful wife as one of the things he gained from his wealthy life? And the woman who walked up to him and asked him what he did, and left when he said he was a student. Male shallowness is aesthetic, but female shallowness is financial? If so, I have to ask, from a purely ethical standpoint - which is worse?