Post: #1

Feminism varies from country to country and so does its effects on game/behavior. There are a few perspectives on why this occurs, a popular one is this: different waves due to feminist leaders changing the course of feminism etc.

My take on it is pretty simple. Anglo feminism has a radical component because they view men as aggressors. They view men as aggressors due to the ratio of the country: single attractive females per single male.

A brief history of American Women
1950s - It's 1950s in America, a few feminist theorists are harping in the background, the men are back from the war, and Elvis is singing on the radio.

1960s - A sex revolution is imminent, drugs, parties, and sex is no longer sold with the precondition of a marriage certificate. Feminists are raging on in the streets. This is a pivotal moment. Now that monogamy is faltering, sex isn't confined and distributed by "men", it is now decided by the free market of sex, which is determined by which people are "in demand".

Women will always be the controllers of sex, unless we have a dramatic male shortage of Russia in the 90s and early 2000s. Men are naturally polygamous; also, the dating range for men is typically 18-35, where as for women its 18-28, so demographics/nature of the sexes clearly are favorable to women.

1970s - Corporate america, processed foods which make everything appear delicious, mcdonalds, etc etc.. the obesity economic weighs in.

1980s - Mass media, supermodels, large distribution of pornography, sex marketing etc.

When we look at the 70s, the economic pool of 18-28 year old nubile women has been sliced significantly by a younger generation that grew up more obese. So you had a slimmer 30 year old population, gaming a smaller pool of attractive women. Fertility rates are also decreasing, which ensures there's more 30 year old men gaming a smaller batch of 20 year old women.

The 80s glamorized sex/perfection and created this augmented reality of Gordon Gecko swindling women after crunching numbers and ruling the world. As women watched cinema, and saw those unrealistic alpha males on screen, they placed themselves in the shoes of the subject (the female character) and thus replicating similar emotional responses felt by these hypothetical characters: http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/04/weekly...r-neurons/

This enhances the ego and expectations of women, causing a spike in the price of sex, and causing men to up their standards in game.

1990s - Obesity increases, shortage of nubile single females, continues. Enter the tech-era, the beginnings of porn -- cost of sex goes down, but men fall victims to Erectile dysfunction (go check up "Big Porn Experiment" on youtube)

2000s - The beginning of augmented reality where women can use the internet to collect "orbiting" beta males who follow and sexually validate them. Women, through evolution, have been programmed to desire attention and validation for the purposes of ensuring their optimal time to mate. But because they have these new validation channels, they're finding fixations on validation rather than sexuality in itself. Cost of sex increases drastically.

Male immigration for skill visas. Developing countries like india, eastern europe, asia send males to anglo hubs for work because they're not feminised enough to send women. Drastically increasing the competition for women.

Vicarious roleplaying through film, music clips, stars, see notes on mirror neurons. Cost of sex increases drastically. Dating pool of single nubile females shortened due to obesity at an all time.

2010s - Combine all those effects, but look at it from a feedback effect. When the slim 22 year old good looking girl gets ridiculous amounts of attention, the probability of her putting on weight, having a shitty personality, not taking care of herself, not being a desirable marriage candidate INCREASES DUE TO COMPLACENCY causing a smaller pool of desirable females and a feedback effect.

SHE SIMPLY DOESN'T HAVE TO TRY TO LOOK GOOD. When there are many men offering her their numbers, asking her out on dates, she is empowered for this very reason alone, and can choose to wear flip-flops, because of her status in the market, not because feminism told her so. This is a misconception.

Post: #2

I think there's a lot to what you say, for sure. But I think it's a combination of that, plus feminism. Both play a big role.

Post: #3

(01-01-2013 09:37 AM)Johnny1975 Wrote:  I think there's a lot to what you say, for sure. But I think it's a combination of that, plus feminism. Both play a big role.

Feminism is basically proportional to a rough equation of : single attractive women per single male.

If you have an abundance of women there wouldn't be too much issues regarding rape: this has been posited by various papers already.

Also feminism and its brand(s) are a type of market too. If there is an abundance of women, they simply will not prescribe to the rosie o'donnel brand of feminism because they fear the bitterness may be contagious and may lead to bad results with men by simply being associated to these philosophies -- it's the same fear that a lot of "game denialists" and male-feminists have when reading manosphere articles. Countries like Brazil are more prone to bad brands of feminism because their demographics have a significant propensity towards accepting radical feminist views, unlike many central and eastern european countries, despite being at the similar levels politically and economically.

They also wont be able to identify with the culture that paints the "dumb male aggressor" because if there is a shortage of good men, then they'll view men as: rare, respectable and desirable, rather than: desperate, predictable, and aggressive.

Post: #4

I'm not sure if I understand. Do you mean that feminism is less effective in countries where there are lots of single females, and therefore isn't that much of an issue in itself?

Post: #5

(01-01-2013 09:55 AM)Johnny1975 Wrote:  I'm not sure if I understand. Do you mean that feminism is less effective in countries where there are lots of single females, and therefore isn't that much of an issue in itself?

Yep, pretty much. How can a woman identify with the "male aggressor" stereotype that feminists try to project consistently if there is simply not enough aggressive males chasing women and manipulating them.

If men are scarce, some projections of feminism simply don't work. The rolemodels don't work either: basically gender ambiguous, not-so-attractive academics that all women are able to identify with when they are being subjected to sexual validation consistently. Anglo women can identify with these role models, because these women are the archetype, or image, of how all women view themselves, when they separate themselves from their sexual self: an antagonizing, "tough", "masculine-looking" weaver of words that spits fire.

Post: #6

I suppose that makes sense. I never thought of it like that. However, feminism doesn't help matters. At least without feminism, the dynamics that you talk about could at least be dealt with without being complicated even more.

Post: #7

(01-01-2013 10:08 AM)Johnny1975 Wrote:  I suppose that makes sense. I never thought of it like that. However, feminism doesn't help matters. At least without feminism, the dynamics that you talk about could at least be dealt with without being complicated even more.

This is not true, and there is one significant detail that's being skimmed over by many authors in the manosphere.

Feminism has the ability to restore things so its male advantageous. This deserves another thread in general, but every major city in the world, or finance hubs as they're called, has received an influx of male-biased skilled immigrants from countries which have not embraced feminism. Eastern-europe being a region of the world where many export workers are males, flooding and diluting the supply of women in places like London.

In developing countries which are biased agaisnt women, with globalisation, feminism will enable and help export these women to anglo-hubs, drastically changing the outcomes for men in
major cities: particularly London.

So let's pretend Ukraine isn't biased towards women anymore so that they can get visas to work in London. It doesn't matter if the Ukranian girl is masculine compared to her friends in kiev, or that she's a "femi"nazi, the fact that she's in London will result in stiffer competition for the british girls.


We are at a time, where anglo-white girls have reached their peak in terms of how much undeserved male attention they receive.

Post: #8

Brazil is a dicey example as there is a significant shortage of men (49.6 to 50.4 male to female which is a huge gap compared to most societies) and yet the country is becoming increasingly anti-male. Of course, Brazilian men tend to be very aggressive and promiscuous, having exploited this scarcity for a while now, creating a feedback loop leading to feminism finding fertile ground.

Post: #9

Duplicate

Post: #10

How come ProfX has been banned? I wonder if he's the same guy as that RealityX dude who posted that brilliant evo psych and hypergamy argument in this thread: /thread-8020-page-2.html a few months ago.

I was quite enjoying this thread.

Post: #11

I would like to know this, too...seemed very opinionated/ outspoken but not evidently trollish

Post: #12

I think this may thread may have been the reason:

/thread-19143.html

Post: #13

Nomad77: sure, paragraph titles such as "why this site is flawed" are clearly intentionally provocative, however his argument from basic supply and demand for each sex being responsible for female behaviour is interesting and worth scrutinising. I think it's a great thing for RVF that we have dissent (that's respectful, not that Jezebel snark) to the central manosphere views, if only because it strengthens the manosphere's arguments and enables it to be immune to a wider range of criticisms.

Post: #14

(01-01-2013 04:06 PM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  Nomad77: sure, paragraph titles such as "why this site is flawed" are clearly intentionally provocative, however his argument from basic supply and demand for each sex being responsible for female behaviour is interesting and worth scrutinising. I think it's a great thing for RVF that we have dissent (that's respectful, not that Jezebel snark) to the central manosphere views, if only because it strengthens the manosphere's arguments and enables it to be immune to a wider range of criticisms.

There may be going on more behind the scenes, but I would not ban based on what I've seen. Nothing wrong with a guy coming out swinging at the forum if he does it respectfully and isn't abusing basic facts. It's a cliche but true - when people argue with you, it makes you discover the weaknesses in your own position.

Post: #15

I don't think he was banned because of his posts.

Post: #16

Samseau, what besides posts could get him banned? Ip?

Post: #17

(01-01-2013 04:34 PM)Asaxon Wrote:  Samseau, what besides posts could get him banned? Ip?

It's probably because I use tor for 80% of browsing/torrents except youtube/gmail and other common sites. I've disabled it now and hopefully I won't get banned again (didn't know its a bannable offence)... I've sent a msg to roosh but no response yet, so I created an account. Hopefully wont get flagged for a troll.