What society expects of you as a man

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.
PostThis post by cats was deleted by puanewb on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:26 am.
Reason: Requested via PM



FuckThis wrote:All this applies only to poor, ugly,low status males.


This. As usual if you're good looking, you bypass all of these "rules" that women like to make.
Depressioncel crew
Heavy Metal crew
Gymcel crew

psrl118 wrote:
FuckThis wrote:All this applies only to poor, ugly,low status males.


This. As usual if you're good looking, you bypass all of these "rules" that women like to make.

Something I made very clear within my OP.

But you are mistaken if you think that only the poor and the ugly get ignored - I tried repeatedly before my self-imposed exile and I can assure you that I am far from poor or low status; and despite shortcomings in looks, certainly not deformed. Try living in London and even being average. This city is like no other.



Norwood Cemetery wrote:
psrl118 wrote:
This. As usual if you're good looking, you bypass all of these "rules" that women like to make.

Something I made very clear within my OP.

But you are mistaken if you think that only the poor and the ugly get ignored - I tried repeatedly before my self-imposed exile and I can assure you that I am far from poor or low status; and despite shortcomings in looks, certainly not deformed. Try living in London and even being average. This city is like no other.



You need some social value. When I was in London I was working as a bouncer and to be fair I got a fair few numbers and had a fair few dates and about 6 lays, and my bouncer gig was not really conducive to slaying (i didn't have much room to manouver due to loud music and management up my ass - girls had to approach me, and they were).

I have some fairly decent white friends who are incel because they either don't approach or don't have a social circle or don't have social value in any way. Couple that with minor aspieness and you have problems. I'm not too sure looks really matter all that much vs social status. You'll see women dating down all the time but the guy was a part of her social/class group - they met in college/work/through friends.

London is an absolute shithole though.

Norwood Cemetery wrote: So what exactly are you after? It's not my job to convince you of anything.


Hey, I'm just responding to your posts. You're the one who was claiming you were going to knock me down... with your words:

Norwood Cemetery wrote:Just keep lining them up for me, folks...,


All I've seen, so far, is you getting pissy that I haven't focused on what you see as your strongest points -- and you still haven't told me what they are yet. Seriously, pick one. We can talk about it.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:The magnitude of the income spent keeping cunts happy is irrelevant. Cunts are (largely) paid the same, cunts have fought tooth and nail to be equal, so simply put, why should the expectation be on a man to pay for dinners, drinks, gifts and spa breaks?


Actually, the magnitude is important. It's what keeps things in perspective. I'm saying you've lost perspective.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:Consigns an opinion to autism, then boldly states that paying for dates somehow 'signals the male will be leading in bed'. LOL, got that logical conclusion there, Reg.


I'm not "boldly" stating anything. It's actually true. It's also why you pay for women on dates, but not for female friends. If women were oppressing men, and trading "kindness" for food, then you'd be paying for women in all social occasions. But you don't. When you pay for a woman during a date, there's a sexual message there. It's why "Can I buy you a drink?" is considered a come-on. But, no, I'm sure it's hypergamy or "constant hypocrisy" -- that doesn't sound aspie at all.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:No-one is looking as far as 'continuing the species'. You were defending the honour of the hard-pressed shitcunts who get pregnant, and I merely pointed out that they did so under their free will. No-one forced them. Their choice, and in my view, their responsibility - not mine.


I don't know. Maybe there's massive social costs if populations decrease and there's not enough workers to support an aging society? So maybe you making a little room on a bus isn't a big deal? You're not Rosa Parks. For fucks sake, have a little perspective.
SIGNATURE

I think that Nortwood had a semi reasonable argument untill he went fully into abys by hating on pregnant females.

It is a fact that he West is biologically dying out, and it is not about some arbitrary decision a female makes. He seems so bitter and cynical at this point that he cannot even understand this simple pure truth out of his hate for the females. Which i understand, i really do, but i have to wonder, is it wise for a man to fall in such hatred.
Fact of the matter is that, females are the soul of the civilization, and the lower they fall,t he lower does the said civilisation fall. Evidenced by the last days we are wittnesing here.

Females are sacred beings, same as every other human being, it is not something to be taken lightly, altho at this point, any semibalance of humanity in western people (i consider that myself as well, i am not above) is destroyed at its root.



And who the fuck is making these tags about me, lmao
Image



PostThis post by cats was deleted by puanewb on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:26 am.
Reason: Requested via PM

cats wrote:
FuckThis wrote:is it wise for a man to fall in such hatred

Wisdom has nothing to do with it. It's called justice. If women keep treating men like shit, it is righteous for those men to respond in kind.

That is pretty limited view.
Hating is like drinking poison and hoping that other person will die.
In the end it only hurts us the most.

FEmale have fallen, it is evident, but the whole culture is demolishing as we speak, it is all coming down, it is not just females. In fact, females might be more morally sound then a lot of Chads, and the "higher up" males.
PostThis post by cats was deleted by puanewb on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:26 am.
Reason: Requested via PM

cats wrote:
FuckThis wrote:Hating is like drinking poison and hoping that other person will die.

Such blue pill bullshit.

The truth is that If you don't hate women, you are being used by them.


And how exactly am i being used by a female, more then a Jew overlord that is making millions out of wageslaves?
Who is really my real enemy here, my own female, or perhaps someone that is promoting this whole evil we are facing.

FuckThis wrote:Hating is like drinking poison and hoping that other person will die.
In the end it only hurts us the most.


Deep shit. I think I read this in a fortune cookie once.

New Poster wrote:Actually, the magnitude is important. It's what keeps things in perspective. I'm saying you've lost perspective.

I think we've truly established how indoctrinated you are in terms of believing the social expectation on men is all fine and dandy. So it seems pointless to argue - but if you want magnitude, consider the professional who isn't NEET and isn't a basement dwelling povertycel. His dates will be lucky to see change from £50+ (more in the capital) - and not an inconsequential sum if said shitcunt takes the meal, takes the drinks and is never seen again. And let's flip it - where is the harm in things being even? Why can't cunts do their fair share when it comes to dating? We moved on to a society that sees men and cunts as equals, but you seem to be stuck in an era where men laid their coats down over fucking puddles. So I ask you - why do we always jettison the undesirable traditions between the sexes, yet have to keep the traditions that benefit shitcunts?

New Poster wrote:I'm not "boldly" stating anything. It's actually true. It's also why you pay for women on dates, but not for female friends. If women were oppressing men, and trading "kindness" for food, then you'd be paying for women in all social occasions. But you don't. When you pay for a woman during a date, there's a sexual message there. It's why "Can I buy you a drink?" is considered a come-on. But, no, I'm sure it's hypergamy or "constant hypocrisy" -- that doesn't sound aspie at all.

Utter horseshit, mein blue-pilled untermensch. Put simply, if your wonderful conjecture that being a master with the wallet equalled being masterful in the bedroom, you maybe wouldn't be spending the early hours on SlutHate trying to defend the very gender who laugh in your face as much they do mine. You are aware that cunts despise whiteknights almost as much as those who show them disdain, don't you? Or has that realisation not hit yet? Don't worry, it will. And as I've tried explaining, men paying for dates extends far beyond the first. Men will pay for most - if not all - throughout the relationship. "Where are you taking me tonight?"

New Poster wrote:I don't know. Maybe there's massive social costs if populations decrease and there's not enough workers to support an aging society? So maybe you making a little room on a bus isn't a big deal? You're not Rosa Parks. For fucks sake, have a little perspective.

I like your tactic of shifting the goalposts every five minutes on the pregancy issue. First it's helping those less able. Then it's social responsibility. Now it's concern for the future population. Note the 'if' in your argument - me not putting pregnant cunts on a pedestal is not exactly going to lead to Japan levels of population dives, is it? And frankly, I really couldn't give a shit about society. That's a personal persepctive for the dossier. But men are becoming less and less willing to commit to marriage, potentially affecting birth rates, because in the West the chips are so brutally stacked against them. The bias in conjugal/divorce/custody laws which favour women are undeniable, even to a dyed-in-the-wool whiteknight like yourself. So if anything is going to affect birth rates, how about considering the paradox women have brought upon themselves by putting men at risk of a financial screwing over upon entering the institution of marriage?

I strongly suspect that you will carry on with this incredibly blinkered facade that being the chivalrous, 'manly' sport until you either die of chronic masturabtion, or you enjoy the pleasure (assuming you are British) of meeting a cunt, providing for her, getting fleeced in the ensuing divorce and getting to see the kids for an hour on weekends. But hey, mine is just the ramblings of a basement-dweller. Shitcunts are the most precious thing in the world and ain't no-one going to stop you protecting 'em. Good lad.

Try and remember faggot, the OP I set out was for what women expect - and by and large, much of it is true. The severity of this expection admittedly varies across issues and is subjective. As I keep saying, if you don't believe them, fine. I'm sure you'll have a very successful sex-life based on your 3:35am SlutHate activity.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:I think we've truly established how indoctrinated you are in terms of believing the social expectation on men is all fine and dandy.


All we've established is that you have a really thin skin.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:but if you want magnitude, consider the professional who isn't NEET and isn't a basement dwelling povertycel. His dates will be lucky to see change from £50+ (more in the capital) - and not an inconsequential sum if said shitcunt takes the meal, takes the drinks and is never seen again. And let's flip it - where is the harm in things being even? Why can't cunts do their fair share when it comes to dating? We moved on to a society that sees men and cunts as equals, but you seem to be stuck in an era where men laid their coats down over fucking puddles. So I ask you - why do we always jettison the undesirable traditions between the sexes, yet have to keep the traditions that benefit shitcunts?


There's no harm. That's the point. This is small shit. Even women think this is small shit. You could literally say "I go dutch on first dates" and you're going to get women to go out with you anyway. For someone who's well-employed (as you constantly remind the forum), I don't really think this is an issue for you. What's going on here is that you're pissed how things are going with women, and you're grasping at straws for reasons why it's society's fault and not yours. Red pill: You're not attractive and no one (including women) care that your work was mentioned in a trade journal.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:I like your tactic of shifting the goalposts every five minutes on the pregancy issue.


I can't emphasize enough that YOU brought up the pregnancy issue. I've invited you to talk about what YOU want multiple times.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:First it's helping those less able. Then it's social responsibility. Now it's concern for the future population. Note the 'if' in your argument - me not putting pregnant cunts on a pedestal is not exactly going to lead to Japan levels of population dives, is it? And frankly, I really couldn't give a shit about society. That's a personal persepctive for the dossier.


Yeah, either of those. You should let people are less able sit, and you probably should respect the fact that society needs future generations to run. I get that you, personally, don't give a shit. But maybe moving slightly on a bus isn't some conspiracy against you. Again, is this the best you got? If there's a point you'd rather discuss, bring it up. What's the most egregious example of men being victimized by female hypocrisy? Let talk about that since this isn't the main point.

Norwood Cemetery wrote: even to a dyed-in-the-wool whiteknight like yourself.


Yawn. Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is a white knight. Way to shield yourself from criticism.

Image
Norwood in his protective fortress of recrimination. Hypergamous shitcunt not included.

New Poster wrote:
Norwood Cemetery wrote:I think we've truly established how indoctrinated you are in terms of believing the social expectation on men is all fine and dandy.


All we've established is that you have a really thin skin.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:but if you want magnitude, consider the professional who isn't NEET and isn't a basement dwelling povertycel. His dates will be lucky to see change from £50+ (more in the capital) - and not an inconsequential sum if said shitcunt takes the meal, takes the drinks and is never seen again. And let's flip it - where is the harm in things being even? Why can't cunts do their fair share when it comes to dating? We moved on to a society that sees men and cunts as equals, but you seem to be stuck in an era where men laid their coats down over fucking puddles. So I ask you - why do we always jettison the undesirable traditions between the sexes, yet have to keep the traditions that benefit shitcunts?


There's no harm. That's the point. This is small shit. Even women think this is small shit. You could literally say "I go dutch on first dates" and you're going to get women to go out with you anyway. For someone who's well-employed (as you constantly remind the forum), I don't really think this is an issue for you. What's going on here is that you're pissed how things are going with women, and you're grasping at straws for reasons why it's society's fault and not yours. Red pill: You're not attractive and no one (including women) care that your work was mentioned in a trade journal.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:I like your tactic of shifting the goalposts every five minutes on the pregancy issue.


I can't emphasize enough that YOU brought up the pregnancy issue. I've invited you to talk about what YOU want multiple times.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:First it's helping those less able. Then it's social responsibility. Now it's concern for the future population. Note the 'if' in your argument - me not putting pregnant cunts on a pedestal is not exactly going to lead to Japan levels of population dives, is it? And frankly, I really couldn't give a shit about society. That's a personal persepctive for the dossier.


Yeah, either of those. You should let people are less able sit, and you probably should respect the fact that society needs future generations to run. I get that you, personally, don't give a shit. But maybe moving slightly on a bus isn't some conspiracy against you. Again, is this the best you got? If there's a point you'd rather discuss, bring it up. What's the most egregious example of men being victimized by female hypocrisy? Let talk about that since this isn't the main point.

Norwood Cemetery wrote: even to a dyed-in-the-wool whiteknight like yourself.


Yawn. Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is a white knight. Way to shield yourself from criticism.

Image
Norwood in his protective fortress of recrimination. Hypergamous shitcunt not included.

LOL. I supposedly have thin skin, yet you've spent some time drafting a post loaded with personal insults. Suggests strongly that you are the butthurt one, certainly not me. Plus, my sub-humanity is not even something I've ever attempted to hide, so those lovely barbs aren't really doing much.

My own experiences (or failures) are nothing to do with what I have raised here, despite the compelling inference.

And like I say - you found your way here too. Hence you are highly likely to be as repellent to women as I am. But hey, at least if you stick up for shitcunts long enough, one of them will have you. Right?

Norwood Cemetery wrote:LOL. I supposedly have thin skin, yet you've spent some time drafting a post loaded with insults. Suggests strongly that you are the butthurt one, certainly not me.


You're down to "I know you are, but what am I?"

Ah, lighten up. I'm just fucking with you. Yeah, there's some bullshit hoops you gotta jump through as a guy, but you're working yourself up into a lather over some really trivial crap that isn't effecting you.

New Poster wrote:
Norwood Cemetery wrote:LOL. I supposedly have thin skin, yet you've spent some time drafting a post loaded with insults. Suggests strongly that you are the butthurt one, certainly not me.


You're down to "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm not down to anything - you masquerade behind a wish to debate but it gets reduced to a set of your own personal grievances against the poster and not the post, clearly because you're affronted that not everyone shares your desperate need to defend shitcunts. Not much point going around in circles. All I see is idealistic horseshit from you, nothing of substance.

And we've not even touched on marriage, employment and legal biases that shitcunts enjoy. Easier to argue about buying a drink, eh?

And I'm guessing your 'hoop-jumping' has been hugely successful? Yeah. Definitely.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:you masquerade behind a wish to debate but it gets reduced to a set of your own personal grievances against the poster and not the post,

Norwood Cemetery wrote:And now, because you are so hopelessly out of your depth, you start whining about ad hominem and how no-one can reasonably debate with you - typical female tactics, clinging to the insults received in order to mask a complete inability to argue with the real points made against your own.


I'll leave you two to argue it out.






Norwood Cemetery wrote:And we've not even touched on marriage, employment and legal biases that shitcunts enjoy. Easier to argue about buying a drink, eh?


Then make your point! Which of these would you like to discuss? I've asked four times now.

New Poster wrote:
Norwood Cemetery wrote:And we've not even touched on marriage, employment and legal biases that shitcunts enjoy. Easier to argue about buying a drink, eh?


Then make your point! Which of these would you like to discuss? I've asked four times now.

Why ask me? I've already made my points within the OP! You're the one claiming it all to be horseshit - YOU explain why it's all horseshit instead of treating this like fucking Starter for Ten.

Oh, and there's a difference between arguing with some insults thrown in, and pure ad hom - you edging toward the latter. But carry on.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:Why ask me?


Dunno. Might have something to do with the fact that you keep bitching that I'm selectively cherry-picking your arguments. So I've asked over and over again for you to state what you want to talk about.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:I've already made my points within the OP! You're the one claiming it all to be horseshit - YOU explain why it's all horseshit instead of treating this like fucking Starter for Ten.


K. The examples you used in your OP are either trivial or don't effect you. We've been over that paying for dates ends up being unnoticable percentage of your income, and moving on a bus? Really? Do we need to go over this? You mention some other examples in your OP such as marriage laws, but this doesn't effect you. You're not in a position to get married. We can talk about the other examples you used if you want, though.

Norwood Cemetery wrote:Oh, and there's a difference between arguing with some insults thrown in, and pure ad hom - you edging toward the latter. But carry on.


Like when you do it, it's cool. But when people do it to you, it's uncalled for. And you're the one talking about the "constant hypocrisy" of women, right?

Man, you need to go to bed. Have you been up through the entire night, there? No wonder I'm dancing circles around you.

theboss wrote:But that isn't a problem. The problem aren't women. Women are just the product of our society.

Yeah next time someone beats you and robs you remember its just a product of society.
__________________
Life is a whore, just pay your dues and fuck her hard

New Poster wrote:You mention some other examples in your OP such as marriage laws, but this doesn't effect you. You're not in a position to get married.

The thread is about what men are expected to be in society - marriage laws not affecting me personally is irrelevant - wtf does that stop discussion? I have seen much in terms of the effects of marriage law bias on others, and understand plenty of details. Same goes for employment.

You disagree with those points? Go ahead and explain why.
PostThis post by cats was deleted by puanewb on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:26 am.
Reason: Requested via PM
PostThis post by cats was deleted by puanewb on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:26 am.
Reason: Requested via PM

Norwood Cemetery wrote:The thread is about what men are expected to be in society - marriage laws not affecting me personally is irrelevant - wtf does that stop discussion? I have seen much in terms of the effects of marriage law bias on others, and understand plenty of details. Same goes for employment.

You disagree with those points? Go ahead and explain why.


Well I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it -- that men are cursed and hopeless because in certain cases men have had to pay alimony. This is literally the conclusion you draw from your premises:

Norwood Cemetery wrote:your life was over the moment your mother was told "It's a boy".


Your tone is melodramatic and overblown. I think that's why you're getting blowback. But, you're right that it's uncontroversial to state that alimony laws are fucked up. You do realize that alimony laws are gender-neutral, though, right? If the couple are similarly employed (which is what you posit), it's not like the woman is going to get alimony. In cases where one is making less, though, the law is flawed -- even normies admit that (it's not some red pill secret). But coming up with a solution is difficult. Do you not ever have alimony? What happens when one spouse gives up their career to take care of kids and then there's a divorce?

Child care is different. There it's mixed blessing for men and women. Women are consider primary care givers, and this can work to their favor in custody disputes (still don't know why you care). But it also works against women in that the expectation is that women will set aside their careers and goals to care for the children. The "have it all" phrase that you used before to talk about female privileged is actually something that men are expected to have with ease. Men can marry, have kids, and a career without these things conflicting. Women who are expected to be the primary care giver have to choose. The "have it all" phrase is usually just a unrealized dream for what men get easily.

So these are complicated issues that don't reduce very easily to your man-vs-woman gender wars argument. But, you know, when you have a hammer, everything's a nail.

New Poster wrote:
Norwood Cemetery wrote:The thread is about what men are expected to be in society - marriage laws not affecting me personally is irrelevant - wtf does that stop discussion? I have seen much in terms of the effects of marriage law bias on others, and understand plenty of details. Same goes for employment.

You disagree with those points? Go ahead and explain why.


Well I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it -- that men are cursed and hopeless because in certain cases men have had to pay alimony. This is literally the conclusion you draw from your premises:

Norwood Cemetery wrote:your life was over the moment your mother was told "It's a boy".


Your tone is melodramatic and overblown. I think that's why you're getting blowback. But, you're right that it's uncontroversial to state that alimony laws are fucked up. You do realize that alimony laws are gender-neutral, though, right? If the couple are similarly employed (which is what you posit), it's not like the woman is going to get alimony. In cases where one is making less, though, the law is flawed -- even normies admit that (it's not some red pill secret). But coming up with a solution is difficult. Do you not ever have alimony? What happens when one spouse gives up their career to take care of kids and then there's a divorce?

Child care is different. There it's mixed blessing for men and women. Women are consider primary care givers, and this can work to their favor in custody disputes (still don't know why you care). But it also works against women in that the expectation is that women will set aside their careers and goals to care for the children. The "have it all" phrase that you used before to talk about female privileged is actually something that men are expected to have with ease. Men can marry, have kids, and a career without these things conflicting. Women who are expected to be the primary care giver have to choose. The "have it all" phrase is usually just a unrealized dream for what men get easily.

So these are complicated issues that don't reduce very easily to your man-vs-woman gender wars argument. But, you know, when you have a hammer, everything's a nail.

Marriage laws in the UK are far more biased than that, especially those around child custody. It's inherently assumed that all things being equal, the women will get custody. That in turn impinges on any associated divorce settlement, and often sees the shitcunt get the marital home to accommodate the custody ruling.

Then we have the issue where men can be pursued for divorce settlements decades after the split - and I am yet to see a single example of women being pursued in these circumstances by an ex-husband. These cases tend to be big news, so it wouldn't go under the radar. Gender Neutral - only technically.

Men are still seen by the courts as the primary 'earners' (despite pay inequality being minimal these days) and this does affect the split of assets so he loses out - often significantly. It is possible for men to be ruined by divorce settlements, but almost never women; because the inherent allowance for them as the carers for the child prevents them from being confined to the streets of being stripped of their money.

And this, as per the article/study quoted in Cats' thread, is why UK men are noticeably not committing to marriage. Too much to lose.

Hence, a man is expected to provide, then in the event of a divorce, expected to be the bottomless money pit. As per my original point.
PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 99 guests