/lit/ - Literature

[philosopher-king No.3194669]

What does /lit/ think of this article?

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Schopenhauer related because he fought against misandry too

[Anonymous No.3194673]

>>3194669

>singularity2050

Stopped reading

[philosopher-king No.3194677]

>>3194673
Okay yeah the URL is kinda dumb, I dunno why he chose it. but what about the article itself?

[Anonymous No.3194683]

>>3194677

I don't know, I don't care what a Y2K bug enthusiast has to say

[Anonymous No.3194685]

>>3194683
y2k?

[Anonymous No.3194686]

>>3194685

Were you not around back then?

[Anonymous No.3194688]

>>3194686
I dunno what 2050 has to do with 2000.

[Anonymous No.3194689]

>>3194688

It's the same bullshit - hype around a fictional future idea with no basis in reality

[Anonymous No.3194694]

>>3194689
I always thought the author chose the name just cause it sounded cool, not because he was literally a singulairtyfag. in any case just give it a look, you're a man so it concerns you.

[Anonymous No.3194696]

>>3194694

This guy can't into subversive cultural dialogue, he's making all kinds of claims out of thin air, and his justification is weak as balls. Yawn, typical MRA Ron Paul supporter bullshit, can't be arsed

[Anonymous No.3194707]

>>3194696
subversive cultural dialogue? i gotta ask are you a femanon?

[Anonymous No.3194774]

>>3194669
>http://www.singularity2050.com
stopped reading right there'd, nope, not gonna get such site any hits

[Anonymous No.3194783]

>>3194774
dont be a pussy. Its a fantastic article.

[Anonymous No.3194791]

>>3194707

No, why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.3194821]

>>3194791
'subversive cultural dialogue' sounds like something a woman would say.

[Anonymous No.3194825]

>>3194821

How so? You don't think a cultural conversation exists?

[Anonymous No.3194836]

>>3194825
No, I'm just saying I hear about it more from women than men.

Back on topic, how many people actually read the article? Its big cause its good.

[philosopher-king No.3195227]

bump

[Anonymous No.3195271]

>>3194677
He chose it because he's a futurist, he believes in the singularity...

[Anonymous No.3195275]

>>3194669
>http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
I read this article about a year ago. I thought it was amazing back then, now I forget what it was about.

[Anonymous No.3195305]

OP must be a huge fan of Ayn Rand.

[philosopher-king No.3195315]

>>3195275
How men are oppressed and disfranchised in Western societies and how our oppression and disfranchisement will end either peacefully or violently in 2020.

[Anonymous No.3195318]

>>3194821
>'subversive cultural dialogue' sounds like something a woman would say.

Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.3195419]

>>3194669
Men have been the authoritative sex a long time in the west. But for many reasons (much because we see and agree to accept the qualities within the female) and through a long process with many struggles and martyrs, the female sex now has strong symbol power in the human psyche. That is proven by the fact that articles like this is shrubbed under the carpet because the collective force doesn't accept it. Only especially intellectually inclined people read it. The 'femdom' in certain parts of the society is a bit extreme and out of balance I think through what is called delayed response oscillations in a system. That is similar to what happens when we are not used to driving a car on ice and we turn the wheel too much and then we have to turn back again and probably turn too much again. So after we reach the climax of female power we will have a period where men will gain power again. I have no idea of the magnitude of the oscillation. In media men's bodies seems to get back on stage without too much irony. So maybe we've already started the process to balance out? I'm certain it will be balanced out. It will be awesome.

[Anonymous No.3195446]

>>3195419
ah, monsieur, how i long for the day when everything is balanced out, everything equal on your scale.

[Anonymous No.3195468]

>>3195446
:D Wanna snuggle?

[Anonymous No.3195541]

>evolutionary psychology
>women in charge of reproductive decisions¶>any year
>Profit-motivated 80s icons as symbols of true masculinity
>single motherhood is unnatural
>women laugh at male genital mutilation
>'feminists' in scare quotes
>'feminists' would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could

I ain't more'n a quarter in but it don't look s'good, boss.

[Anonymous No.3195597]

>>3195541
if humanity are sane enough to eliminate the "ist" obsession on today's culture that war will be prevented and more social issues are put into discussion as opposed to make war to make more money for rich bitches. It is pretty prevalant on high-society sports and high-society laws.

[Ollie !!KX1j+pu7EIN No.3195618]

>>3195597
>if humanity are sane enough to eliminate the "ist" obsession

But it's so much easier to manipulate societies this way.

[Anonymous No.3196160]

Virgin neckbeards... virgin neckbeards everywhere...

[Anonymous No.3196172]

>>3196160
...and here's the sexual shaming. Because if you're not a whore you can go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.3196206]

>>3196172

>is critical of sexual shaming
>uses the term whore
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3196248]

>>3196206
I thought the masturbation joke was funnier, but whatever floats your boat.

[philosopher-king No.3196254]

>>3196160
>>3196206
misandrist

[Anonymous No.3196258]

ITT: female undergrads in a tizzy

[Anonymous No.3196269]

>>3196254

[Anonymous No.3196278]

[Anonymous No.3196358]

>>3196278
>3196278
All of these things apply to women more than men. Women love badboys and violence. If women rewarded non-violent men with sex there would be no war or violence.

[Anonymous No.3196368]

>>3196358
shut the fuck up, you idiot, stop being so dumb and wrong

how do you people even fucking live on this planet with such fucking dumb thoughtless ideas on how the world works. "men are only violent because they want sex from women." lord oh lord oh me oh my, how the fuck can you think that. that's one of the most abjectly unrealistic things I've ever seen on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3196380]

>Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

[Anonymous No.3196414]

>>3196380

This is fucking stupid. Even in societies that permit it, polygyny doesn't account for more than a very small number of marriages. In practice, at the level of society, it is virtually indistinguishable from monogamy.

[Anonymous No.3196417]

>>3196414
This is completely untrue, not just for polygynous societies but for nominally monogamous ones as well.

Do you have any idea how much wealth correlates to number of sexual partners?

[Anonymous No.3196427]

>>3196417
I hear the 40-80 rule a lot. The problem is that in most pre-industrialized societies men were vastly more likely to die before reproduction than women. Tribal warfare, hunting deaths, etc. ensured that there would usually be more women than men reaching reproductive age and having kids. "60% of men" didn't get a chance to reduce not because they were crowded out by polygamists but because they simply didn't survive.

[Anonymous No.3196437]

>>3196417
>Polygamy for Muslims, in practice and in law, differs greatly throughout the Islamic world, where polygamous marriages constitute only 1–3% of all marriages.

That's probably 80-90% of polygynous societies right there. It is true.

[Anonymous No.3196439]

>>3196417
>>3196437

Also, sexual partners != marriage partners or mothers of children

[Anonymous No.3196441]

>>3196414
Yes, humans evolved to become primarily monogamous mostly because of the length of our gestation periods and how long it takes to raise a human (very long compared to other animals). But what the author argues is that modern developments, in particular contraceptives and laws that amount to "female-centric social engineering" (creating our social landscape in a way that favors females; divorce alimony, prosecution of male on female violence at much higher rates than the converse) are causing women to take advantage of these systems at men's expense.

[Anonymous No.3196444]

>>3196368
really? thats one of the MOST abjectly unrealistic things you've seen here? boy you are new..

[Anonymous No.3196445]

>>3196441
>humans evolved to become primarily monogamous

What the fuck are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.3196449]

>>3196441
>>humans evolved to become primarily monogamous

The author argues precisely the opposite (top alphaz get lotsa wymminz throughout our evolutionary history). If he's wrong about that, maybe he's wrong about "social engineering" too.

[Anonymous No.3196461]

Natural Selection on Male Wealth in Humans, Daniel Nettle and Thomas V. Pollet
Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals?, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder
Wealth, Status, and Reproductive Success among the Mukogodo of Kenya, Lee Cronk
Those who can do: Wealth, status, and reproductive success on Ifaluk, Paul W. Turke and L.L. Betzig
Wealth, polygyny, and reproductive success, R. Dawkins

Read up, retards.

[Ollie !!KX1j+pu7EIN No.3196462]

>>3196437
You know very little about polygamy, evidently. There's this place called "Africa" ...

[Anonymous No.3196489]

>>3196461
>>Monique Borgerhoff Mulder
>>Monique
>>taking anything a woman writes seriously

SHIGGYDIGGY

[Anonymous No.3196495]

>>3196462
>There's this place called "Africa" ...

The population of which is approximately half Muslim.

You know very little about Africa, evidently.

[Ollie !!KX1j+pu7EIN No.3196508]

>>3196495
And of the other half, a very large number are traditionalists, who also allow for polygamy. Next time you join a conversation, tell people beforehand whether you know anything about the subject. That way you'll spare them the tedium of having to interact with you.

[Anonymous No.3196522]

>>3196508
yes, because everyone lives in Africa, and 50% of 1 continent's population (even less, considering how many are Christian as well) represent most human societies presently and throughout history

[Ollie !!KX1j+pu7EIN No.3196528]

>>3196522
You said that Muslims make up 80-90% of polygamy. That's false.

[Anonymous No.3196530]

>>3196522
You don't understand the logic of the argument, my friend.

You see, the Africans, being black and bestial, are more primitive, more vital, more ALIVE than white people, even if they're also less civilized and stupider. They have better rhythm and dances than white folks, and bigger penises. Something about black people speaks to the primal origins of human beings. Therefore, by looking at their social arrangements, we can get a look at what is natural for human beings in their animalistic origins. Which is what black people still are.

(Obviously I don't agree with any of this, but I think this - or something like it - is the invisible, implicit, maybe not conscious but nevertheless present logic of the argument)

[Anonymous No.3196552]

>>3196528
There are a billion muslims, not nearly as many non-Abrahamic africans.

[Anonymous No.3196592]

>>3196508
>And of the other half, a very large number are traditionalists, who also allow for polygamy

Muslim population: 1.6 billion
Non-Muslim population of Africa: ~500 million

Let's generously assume that half of these are "traditionalists". That would make my figure in >>3196437, which I admittedly pulled out of my ass, completely correct.

>Next time you join a conversation, tell people beforehand whether you know anything about the subject. That way you'll spare them the tedium of having to interact with you.

Such a douchebag, and yet not even correct...

[Ollie !!KX1j+pu7EIN No.3196616]

>>3196592
>assumes all Muslim marriages are polygamous

Oh boy.

[Anonymous No.3196633]

>>3196592
wtf

[Anonymous No.3196636]

>>3196616

Bro, try to follow the conversation. We're talking about polygamous societies. I pointed out that the actual rate of polygynous marriages in Islamic societies - nearly all of which are polygynous - was very low. I suggested that these societies represented the overwhelming majority of polygynous societies. It looks like I'm pretty much right. I don't know why all of this is getting you so upset.

[Rei !p8eYCadcMo No.3197006]

Ollie is the dumbest tripfag on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3197012]

>>3197006
I can't tell the difference between any of them.