I have no idea what that means since I don’t watch movies for children
Exactly what an edgy Ant Man would say.
You see what I mean?
wait, do you lift?
doesn’t look like it. 
Sure.
I’d say the popularity of these superhero movies with men in their late 20s and 30s goes hand in hand with the ability of the feminist movement to corrupt society so easily in the last 10+ years.
@BrickHead have you ever thought about that?
If you’re going to talk about people, it’s reasonable to tag them in so they have an opportunity to respond if they choose.
3 Likes
Dude, by all measurable accounts you’re getting out worked by a dude with a piece of chipped ham flapping around in his chest.
Haha!
2 Likes
There has actually been real work done correlating super heros with times of war.
Like te past 20 years.
1 Like
You’re going to have to buy me a couple drinks there, big guy.
I’ve been posting here for 15 years my man. You wonder why I mainly post in Off Topic is because, there are more informed people in the other forums.
I used to post and help out newbies quite a bit but the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze for me anymore - plus I don’t have the time to follow a thread in any real detail … even in here.
I’ll be like 30 or 40 posts behind sometimes so I’ll skim for gist.
I haven’t posted a pic on this site or any site in years - I’m not impressive. Used to be able to lift a good deal given my bodyweight but my lifting has become passive in the past 2 years.
Recently bought a squat rack, barbell and weights for the garage and have slowly started getting back into a strict, consistent routine…and for the record, no one here has ever seen one of your pics so that I’m aware of…
purposefully, the word you’re looking for is purposefully.
I mean, most of us schmoes are here for the banter. I like to bust balls, sometimes I get a bit pedantic, so sue me.
Too refined for you is it?
2 Likes
which measures would that be? lol
The documented existence, pictorial proof, and work out log.
Oh, and a seven year old. You are getting out lifted and out worked by a seven year old.
1 Like
Professor X was abrasive. You’re just whiny.
Ohhhhh, shoot! Did I just do it again? I did, didn’t I? Damn my lack of self-control and social acuity!
Say something I respect and I’ll say something along the lines of “I can respect that.” Say something that shows you as small and petty after you’ve needlessly insulted people, and I will treat you like you’re small and petty. You don’t get to childishly kick and scratch at people and then expect them to follow the rules of polite discourse.
It seems not to be a problem, happily. I’m turning away business at work and have friends at home. But maybe they’re all submissives and I’m their verbal dominatrix. Hmm.
2 Likes
I have no idea what you’re talking about, like usual.
Your son is pretty bad ass
2 Likes
Well I’ll break out the crayons in honor of the good professor:
This is a log-
In it is time stamped documentation and pictures
.
A whole bunch of people here have them. They lift weights, jog, swim, all kinds of stuff, then write it down. Huge part of the site. People love it.
You should try it some time if you start lifting or are able to dig up that stock photo you posted.
1 Like
There are also check-ins, which allow people to bounce in a couple of times a year with a photo, general update, and maybe some goals.
3 Likes
Right now … my goal is to re-establish habitual lifting…
Okay, here we go…
The only reason I am going through this blog post is because a) I like you Brick and b) I am curious how Imran is going to tie all of the stuff he wrote about in the first paragraph to the tainted interactions between men and women, forcible transfer of resources (even though marriage is voluntary, but we’ll get to that), and incentives for good women to make unwise choices.
Broadly, I think the premise is accurate. However, the article does a really poor job of explaining it.
So, part I is basically a version of the victim Olympics. Who had it worse? Men or women. I don’t have a problem with the notion that both men and women had it bad throughout history and I’m not going to get into the weeds on whether or not dying in combat is worse than becoming a sex slave. My personal opinion is that an honorable death in combat > being a sex slave, but I digress.
What annoys me about this passage is the author’s attempt to stifle conversation by dismissing anecdotes, which as far as I can tell is the majority of evidence used in this article. He brings up voting rights and then says men could not vote either, but he does not provide a citation. So, let’s walk through it. For most of history, there was a ruling class of some kind and the peasant class, for lack of better term. So, yes, for most of history neither male nor female had a vote because voting didn’t exist.
However, where democracy or a republic did exist did men and women have equal political rights? Probably no. In the Roman Republic, women had no political rights. Only landowners (men) could vote. In the Greek Democracy, women had no political rights either. Women could not vote in the US until 1920. So, sorry, I don’t buy the notion that men and women have had equal political rights throughout history.
That’s one example. Did women have the same property rights as men in early US history? No.
In summary, the author claims that he doesn’t substantiate and then he points to modern times, “Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women.” Women didn’t gain the right to vote in Saudi Arabia until 2015. Imran’s research wasn’t very thorough.
I wanted to highlight this section separately because wowzers… 1) his link doesn’t work (a common theme in the blog post probably because of how old it is), 2) the dismissal of female genital mutilation, something that happens far more often than male mutilation is unreal.
https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/
And, before this comes up again (not directed at you, Brick) circumcision =/= genital mutilation.
In summary, 200 million women have had their genitals mutilated, but sometimes trash women laugh at men that have had their’s mutilation.
Moving on…
Read that last sentence and tell me this piece isn’t biased as hell.
I already touched on this a bit. There is no masculinity vacuum in entertainment. That’s just not true.
I agree that there was a spell where a lot of modern TV showed husbands as bumbling dimwits (King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc…). The funny thing about that, though, is 1) both of their wives in the shows were supportive of their idiot husbands and 2) both shows were created by men. Further, a quick Google search shows me the most-watched shows in 2010 were:
The first three are “live” shows (dancing, singing, and the NFL). #4 is NCIS, a shows about a strong male investigator leading a team of mostly men and yes a couple of “strong” women. #5 reality TV (survivor). #6 NCIS LA, again mostly men solving crimes. #6 Charlie fucking Sheen in Two and a half men. So on and so forth. The only show on the list I can think of that might fit his description is Desperate Housewives (I guess, I haven’t seen it) and maybe Mike & Molly (again haven’t seen it).
TV shows lead to all of these things including the normalization of single motherhood? That is a heck of a claim. I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons for the rise of single motherhood and it isn’t entertainment, but at the end of the day, this is, yet again, just his opinion. He doesn’t back it with anything other than his previous opinion on entertainment, which I think is flawed to be generous.
Can’t say I’ve ever run into the glorification of “cougarhood” nor will I attempt to opine on whether it’s desirable or not.
Then he pivots to genetic research and this time the link worked. First his source (Dr. Roy F. Baumeister) says that culture has exploited women:
Who’s right, Imran Khan or the guy whose authority Imran appeals to?
Okay, so let’s go back. Iman writes, " The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all."
That’s not what Dr. Baumeister said. He said, men often died before reproducing. He goes on to talk about some of the reasons why, namely, that men do more extreme things while women take fewer risks specifically so that they can reproduce. Nowhere does he mention the idea that top men had multiple wives or that the bottom 60% had no mating prospects. He either didn’t read his source or he’s using a single quote to be disingenuous.
Link doesn’t work.
I had to look up the word “hypergamous”.
Okay, it doesn’t really say anything about a woman’s attention wanning from a declining man to an ascendant man, but I guess we’ll get to that… Again, opinions. No facts.
Now we’re getting into my favorite part, the Alpha/beta part.
Let’s break this down. Women want relationships and then women want to end them and culture/society shames men into commitment. Again, we get his opinion and victim Olympics so whatever…
He says 90% of divorces are initiated by women. The link doesn’t work. I found 70% on Psychology Today (published in 2015)
The whole next section is a steaming pile of bias vomit. Women “destroy” the commitment by filing for divorce? In my experience, relationships are destroyed long before divorce papers are filed. Yes, children are harmed by divorce. Yes, men tend to be the ones that have to financially support the women and children.
“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.” Um, whut?
Citation?
I don’t even know what to say about this. Contraception is a cause for the supposed decline of western civilization. That is a heck of an opinion. Again, it’s new to me, but I don’t think he’s using that word right.
Okay, so, in the past women had to get married because if they didn’t they would almost assuredly find themselves in poverty since they had few job opportunities and no property rights. If they wanted a divorce they had to, “prove misconduct,” which isn’t defined or cited here.
Apparently, in the early colonial days, you could get a divorce for impotence…
You know what’s missing from the above list, domestic abuse.
Hmm, I wonder why women pre-20th didn’t divorce:
Now we get this gem:
Vacuum cleaners and ovens are the reason why women can work because it used to take women a full day to do the their chores and now it takes them an hour or less. Get the fuck outta here. First of all, with a family of four, it takes an hour to do the dishes. It takes, at last, an hour to cook dinner. This is just laughable.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume 55% of the population sees not having to marry for financial support as a good thing. I can’t imagine being forced to marry someone for financial support. Very few people would want to live like that.
Okay, so we subsidize single-motherhood. We subsidize a lot of things and men participate too… A quick search tells me about 25% of women age 16-64 are on some form of welfare with 19% of men in the same age group using some form of welfare. Kids use more welfare than men or women (around 35% of 5-under).
The link doesn’t work:
Yes, there are some anecdotes (still not sure if Inman is a fan of these or not) where men are accused of sexual misconduct/harassment and they get fucked royally. There are also a lot of examples of women being raped and no one being punished so I’m not sure what his point is?
I would say some of these forces liberated women, but, again, we’re both just giving our opinions here. Technology gave them the freedom to pursue careers (be financially independent weird that this guy doesn’t like individual liberty) and the freedom to be promiscuous. Doesn’t contraception benefit men that don’t want kids or a relationship?
It’s funny how different a perspective can be depending on whose authority you appeal.
If we look at the Institute of Family Studies, for example, they acknowledge the same facts about contraception, but arrive at a different conclusion:
Definitely a lot different perspective…
The link doesn’t work. I have no idea what “fatocalypse” is. I assume it’s related to increasing obesity rates in the West. Is #1 even accurate? I see an average number of children per household at 2.33 in 1960 dropping to a low of 1.81 in 1987 now at 1.93 in 2019.
Not sure where 3 or more came from. Life expectancy for a man was 58 in 1930 and has steadily gone up to 76 in 2010. Women have shown roughly the same increase (61 - 81).
#2 10-20% of young men died at war or through their occupation. 3.7% of the global population died in WW2 and most of these deaths were civilians. I’d love to see how he came to this percentage range. I’m not going to touch the remaining hyperbole in that statement.
#3 As we saw, women now have approximately 4-5 sexual partners. Not a lot has changed since the invention of contraception. Women didn’t suddenly become whores.
#4 The notion of leaving because of abuse was also out of the question per the pre-no fault divorce laws we saw earlier. So women were forced into marriage for financial and security reasons, something men have never had to deal with, and they couldn’t get out of an abusive one until now. Do you think the law is better or worse in total now or before no-fault divorce?
Yes, men don’t die as often in combat or at work (a positive), people can have sex without having kids (a positive), women have the same financial freedom men do (I’d call that a positive), and women can initiate a no-fault divorce when they’re being abused (seems like a positive to me). Is there room to improve? Yes. Absolutely. I think divorce law needs to evolve now that women are generally financially stable, for example.
The link doesn’t work. Traditionally the bride’s family (I love how he says the bride’s father) pays for the wedding and since she plans it (usually) the cost is up to them, right? My family paid $0 for my wedding. My opinion is that weddings are astronomically expensive and it’s unnecessary too, but Jesus how does he pivot to men being pushovers because weddings are expensive? Expensive weddings are apparently an American tradition:
2/3rds of couples bought engagement rings in 1939. The idea that the ring was usually a family heirloom is false.
- Terminating a marriage =/= terminating an employment contract. 2) Severance is not required by law. 3) It’s cool for the employer or the employee to terminate their contract, but it’s not cool for the woman to terminate her marriage “contract” at any time? Terrible analogy.
Again, the divorce court needs to be addressed. Men do get screwed often. More are entitled to alimony and women should not be the default parent.
He’s not a fan of lawyers, lol. The link worked! Who the fuck is this lady and why should I care? IMO, this highlights a very different problem we have, people take crazy on the internet way too seriously.
The above is the only section, hyperbole aside, that has any merit so far, IMO. He goes off the deep end after that, talking about tyranny, a leftist shadow state, etc… I’m not going to address any of that.
I’m definitely not touching:
At this point, I’ve read and typed enough about divorce. If I missed a portion of that section of value please let me know.
The Economic Thesis
Heck ya, maybe we’ll finally get some answer to his opening paragraph.
The link doesn’t work. Okay, some people complain about the gender demographics of the C-suite. I assume because he used the term “supposed” that he doesn’t think there is a glass ceiling for women to become CEOs. That’ snot true:
Fortune 100:
It looks to be even lower in the Fortune 500.
However, there’s no pay gap:
As for the glass floor, who is not mentioning it? Feminists? Shouldn’t men be talking about this? Why would you expect women concerned about equal rights for women to talk about a predominantly male issue?
As far as the pay gap goes, it exists for several reasons. It’s always going to exist. No argument from me there.
Then he goes off the rails, again:
Umm, considering a law to mandate Public Companies hire equal parts men and women (something I vehemently disagree with) is light-years from mandating equal imprisonment and workplace injuries. Is this guy serious?
Can’t wait for an explanation of how the leftists Obama adminstration forcibly transferred wealth to women. Link doesn’t work.
I’m pretty confident just as many if not more men have benefited from an inheritance than women. He just sounds bitter here and Shriver’s “fortune” isn’t relevant here at all.
Does the link work? No. Do I care what Maria Shriver has to say? No.
“As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm.”
As of Dec, 2019 they look the same to me.
I wonder why he started in 1980? I’m going to guess it’s because female unemployment was higher than male unemployment before 1980 for the most part until it spiked for men in the 80s and remained elevated through 2010. Now there’s no difference.
Participation rates are decline for both sexes with men still participating quite a bit more even though we make up a smaller portion of the population.
70% marginal tax rate… Because of child support and alimony. Bit of a stretch here.
Page not found.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if public sector employees make more than private-sector employees. The government is bloated and generally useless. Not sure what that has to do with women, though.
Women live longer so they get more social security benefits. Okay. Women consume more healthcare, link doesn’t work.
Lol, “It may be ‘natural’ for women to require more healthcare since they are the ones who give birth.” No kidding… Women have unique healthcare issues that men don’t. Plus, they actually go to the doctor. If I wasn’t married I wouldn’t spend any money on healthcare (except premiums) because I would never go.
Women work in healthcare, yes. Women like to be nurses. Any proof that women make up the majority of admin and bureaucratic positions?
Another wowzer comment. Rising healthcare costs are because of the feminist agenda. Jesus. Such nuanced analysis.
Link doesn’t work. Was there another recession in 2011?
At no point did he demonstrate that men are excluded from the labor market by social engineering.
Most men could eke out an adequate existence working two months a year, mkay. Then he just restates some stuff he already said. The Four Sirens et al. The link works, fantastic. It’s happiness in the UK from what I gather. No link to the actual research. I also don’t see the relevance.
Finally, we get to the decline of Baltimore, Detroit, and Cleveland. Home prices have declined, okay. The auto industry moved, but the decline isn’t related to that, mkay. So, what’s the reason? Nothing is given. Well, that’s disappointing.
Crime rates:
Peaked in the 1990s and is now back down to pre-70s levels.
Lolz.
Patriarchy “works” because women were forced to cooperate to survive when they couldn’t own land, get a well-paying job, or divorce an abusive husband.
I’m not going to defend feminism, certainly not modern feminism, nor am I going to even entertain this beta male chivalry non-sense.
I’m going to stop here. I just wasted an unbelievable amount of time on this and it doesn’t appear to get much better. I did find the part about adult entertainment technology pretty funny, though. If you can’t master the core skills of “Game” (lol) you’ll at least be able to virtually fuck a pornstar that’s a 10!
Sorry, Brick, I did not think this blog post was very good.
8 Likes
I’m on break so I just read all of your post but not all articles linked. Thanks for the post. Like I said before, I didn’t like all of the article, but it hit home with much of it. I particularly dislike some of the man’s advice (eg, learn game, pre-nuptial agreement, make sure a fiancé makes as much or more, etc.). And of course some of it is just opinions and you do make valid points.
I’m seriously not trying to dodge people’s posts lately. Coincidentally and thankfully, considering this thread is about marriages and relationships, what is actually keeping me from making thorough, thoughtful posts at a laptop or desktop is my marriage, kids, extended family, and friends. I was planning on responding to you, pfury, punnguy, greenboy. I tell myself I’m gonna reply, because I actually like this forum, the posters, and topics, and then when I’m done with chores, plans, the children, I’m mentally shot. For the first time in a long time I was out til almost 2 AM on Saturday at a party and It reminded me I’m just not young anymore.
Just one thing I’d like to get out there is that I liked that you mentioned that it would be suitable for men to be concerned with male problems and I there are some men out there discussing them. As said elsewhere, I’ve read some on the topic and I showed links to Tucker Carlson, Andrew Yang, Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell.
I really want to post during the week when I can Actually sit down with some energy.
2 Likes
I read the first 10% and realized I wasn’t even close to the end.
Damn dude, are you at work?
I’m off for MLK