Quote from KellyMac

No. It was directed at the OP.



What's this "ya'll" crap? Who said I want to live in a one-sex society? Decide on your own future, pal.

I said "ya'll" cuz I thought you were supporting the idea that a female-only society would run better.

Honestly, I think a "one-sex" society would be smoother... in the same manner a "one race" society would. For a short time. But, for neglible differences, ppl will always find a reason to kill each other. If we're the same color, you're a different religion (nazis) or have a different favorite color (bloods vs crips) or like a different style of government (greek city-states)

Quote from Black Knight

...But, for neglible differences, ppl will always find a reason to kill each other. If we're the same color, you're a different religion (nazis) or have a different favorite color (bloods vs crips) or like a different style of government (greek city-states)

Very much so. People can always look around and find some reason to gang up on someone else. Two of the easiest ones - because they are normally so visible - are race and sex. Remove those, however, and you don't remove human nature to gang up against someone else, you just just make the main divisions something else, such as religion, food choice, where one's parents (or grandparents, or even great-great-great-grandparents) came from.

The idea that a civilisation of only women, or of only men, would be any kind of utopia for anything other than the mentally insane or socially disabled is nonsense.

Quote from Black Knight

Honestly, I think a "one-sex" society would be smoother... in the same manner a "one race" society would.

Apart from the obvious evolutionary impracticalities of either sex breaking off, I'm of the persuasion that the cancerous infection (feminism) be cut out rather than dispersing a functional and productive society.

Quote from Udoli Pixie

Joining to see men's approach on dating, relationships, and marriage. For a paper on whether human interaction is more replaceable for heterosexual men or women.

I.E. for women can a career, money, adoption, and surrogates replace a life partner. My input thus far says no.
I.E. for men can nurses, prostitutes, friends, hobbies, adoption, and surrogates replace a life partner. My input thus far says yes.

It seems to me that you are comparing apples and oranges here.

Can career, money, adoption and surrogates replace the need for nurses, prostitutes, friends, and hobbies for men?

Can nurses, prostitutes, friends and hobbies replace the need for career, money, adoption and surrogates for women?

Can this thread survive without big, unsubstantiated generalities?

There were men living completely alone as fur trappers, aka. "Mountain Men" in the United States at one time. They were generally recognized as "cuckoo"-- too much time alone seemed to damage their psyche (aka. they went insane). Yet they pursued lucrative careers as fur traders and had nothing but hobbies and work to keep them occupied.

I think most reasonable people would realize that the interaction of women and men, at least at a primitive level, is not harmful to society. In fact, for tribes and primitive farm communities that is the foundation for society (ex. chimpanzees, gorillas and other great apes). Perhaps at a certain point of development more division between the sexes could be useful.

For example, the Spartans kept the genders separate aside from breeding. It worked, for a time at least. The women were happy with chariot races, gymnasiums, running the farms and businesses, raising offspring, etc. while men honed their warrior skills and studied combat, strategy and stealth far away from the walled cities. Both genders were notoriously bisexual in that society. It worked in that the Spartan men were the most feared warriors and won battles against unimaginable odds because they had dedicated their lives to war. But enemies of Sparta were also afraid to take a city filled only with women and children because the women learned enough to defend the walls and could wield bows and slings and ride chariots.

Perhaps women have a deeper need for children-- or perhaps this is reinforcing some feminist image that the male is NOT a worthy father figure. Some men do crave fatherhood. Should we discount their desires by saying a prostitute and nurse could replace that need?

You have a fascinating idea but it needs more careful attention to detail to be executed well. Thank you for sharing.

Quote from Eidolon

You have a fascinating idea but it needs more careful attention to detail to be executed well. Thank you for sharing.

You made a lot of good points before you started veering off into encouraging division of the sexes.

I wouldn't encourage division of the sexes. Maybe a time-out of the sexes? Maybe they need to stand in the corner and think about what they've done before they hug and make up.

I phrased it too tactfully I see. What I meant was: Do more research, dig deeper, and then reconsider.

Quote from Eidolon

I wouldn't encourage division of the sexes. Maybe a time-out of the sexes? Maybe they need to stand in the corner and think about what they've done before they hug and make up.

I phrased it too tactfully I see. What I meant was: Do more research, dig deeper, and then reconsider.

I'll phrase it more forcefully, I believe your trolling with divisive intent here. And whatever you intend is not going to come to fruition here. I am here and when I'm not, others will ensure that the individual is never elevated above the needs of the many.

"Unfortunately all I found so far were that heterosexual women still wanted life partners !"

what happened to husbands n wives

Quote from Celtic Druid

I'll phrase it more forcefully, I believe your trolling with divisive intent here. And whatever you intend is not going to come to fruition here. I am here and when I'm not, others will ensure that the individual is never elevated above the needs of the many.

Allegations of theoretical future transgression? How can any forum-goer defend honorably against such accusations? Allegations such as those lead toward a witch hunt.

Curiosity brought me here to explore the community, knowledge and discourse-- not an agenda. Not any more agenda than any person carries from the baggage (societal, experiential, etc.) clanking around in their psyche.

I merely ask that you not let an initial opinion circumscribe a person you do not yet know.

I am here to learn and make friends and contribute positively.

If my responses seem more strained it is because I sense (maybe mistakenly) hostility and proceed to walk on eggshells.

Hm? I just wanted to see what women do when they're left alone. Without men to pin all of the shitty parts of life they can on us, would chivalry survive? If so, who would be the providers and beneficiaries? Butch chicks? Heavy chicks? What defines the lines? Would the populace automatically type-cast the daintiest ladies as stylists, artists, models, housewives, and the 'easy, feminine spots', while the not-so-skinny take on schoolteaching, waiting, transit, and professional endeavors? Would the tall-butch and fat women be doomed to be workhorses and breadwinners, mechanics, custodians, sewer and garbage maintainers all because they LOOK the most like men and therefore should provide the "lady-ladies" comfort, free meals, and an alimony cheque?

That's why I'm honest about wanting to see this. It's trilling, from an objective POV. We'll provide them with all of the (female) sperm they need via export, therefore they should(?) need naught else from men. This would be a wonderful social experiment, because the feminists are gonna either get proven right ("a womyn needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"), or have to shut their mouths the fuck up.

*Once again I labeled this a dead thread but how nice of you to post after the fact just to vent out whatever feelings you had.*

Quote from Douglas

Be sensible. If you're going back as far as talking about when/if humans developed from fish, you are not talking about human evolution at all. You're not even talking about mammalian evolution. You are talking about evolution of vertebrates, perhaps. There is so little evidence of evolution from fish that anything in that area is pure speculation (there's not even a clear trail from hominid to homo sapien). There is so little evidence of the biological structure of creatures of billions of years ago, that anything in that area is pure speculation, also.

I am being sensible and I know there's so little evidence which is why I stated it's my belief the keyword is...belief.

Quote from Udoli Pixie

This preconceived notion comes from my scientific belief that men and women were meant to have both fertile reproductives of both genders and be able to procreate with each other.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Douglas

Yet another example of basing a conclusion on pure assumption and speculation.

This conclusion wasn't based on assumptions or speculation.

Quote from Udoli Pixie

So apparently women who find men replaceable = negative & men who don't find women replaceable = negative.

Quote from Redpill

The women that think they find men replaceable, are lesbians, and even those relationships never last. Their lives are nothing but train wrecks without a man present. They try to compensate by acting like men.

My question:

Quote from Udoli Pixie

As for the men who don't find women replaceable what is the deciding factor?

His response:

Quote from Redpill

They have to learn to deal with it, and come to terms that worshipping pussy gets them nowhere. It only slows their creative process. Given the way most women act nowadays, in terms of negativity and promiscuity, most women are vastly overated, and they aren't worth any mans time.

Women who find men replaceable = negative. No assumptions made there unless failing relationships, compensating, and that their live is nothing but a train wreck without a man present is not a negative.

Men who don't find women replaceable = negative. No assumptions/speculation made there unless the men who don't think women are replaceable deciding factor is that they are worshipping pussy is not a negative.

Along with his other statements about women being vastly overrated, not worth any mans time, women are negative & promiscuious. Not sure if he's aware being overrated, not worth the time, and the majority of the gender are negative is not only a woman thing but also a man thing.

I was correct in my assertion that women who find men replaceable = negative & men who don't find women replaceable = negative. That whole it is incomprehensible to conclude that men are replaceable it's just doubtful that women are replaceable.

So while women who find men replaceable are just compensating and their lives are nothing but train wrecks the men who don't find women replaceable are just worshipping pussy. So yes women who find men replaceable = negative & men who don't find women replaceable = negative.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Douglas

Well, what do you know, an admission of a flaw. Anyone looking into something with an expectation of the outcome is likely to find that outcome because they've already told their mind to look for the proof of it.

That's not an admission of a flaw. It's clear from this site like most MRAs forums unfortunately that I visited that there is a slight to heavy bias in the forum members.

I wasn't expecting any outcome. In case you missed it my theory was that both men and women are replaceable so if I was expecting an outcome it would be that one. Even the title of this thread is different from the outcome I desired in my theory paper.

Quote from Udoli Pixie

It quite sucks because I wanted to prove that male & female interaction was meaningless and replaceable.

My research, interviews, and opinions from others states differently from my intended theory so your this rationalizing it as me finding the outcome I expected is a logic failure seeing as how I didn't find the outcome my intended theory was.

If you were suggesting I got this bias from the forum members because I was expecting it that's amusing because I was curt and forthcoming with answering the questions about my topic, the class, and the course when asked.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Douglas

The worst of it is, you probably like to think of yourself as a scholar. However, you show that you are nothing of the sort.

You show nothing of the sort but that you are lacking reading comprehension.

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

You know what is actually harmfull to society? Ignorant humans with petty ideas/claims and an abundance of hubris such as you (pixie) have displayed.

You do not back your condescending attitude up and that makes you an arrogant snob. Myself, I can safely say so for you can't look down on me and be justified at the same time.

You confirm my general view of people whom study and/or practice social studies. People with an inflated sense of self-worth whom amount to nothing (in the sense of being usefull to society).

I labeled this a dead thread.

I differ I think violence and hate are harmful to society.

Ignorant- not sure how I'm ignorant since I was asking for inputting and collecting it. While collecting it from other people since this forum had nothing to add until after I labeled it a dead thread because of the inactivity.

Petty ideas/claims it's a theoretical paper most of the ideas/claims could be called that not sure how petty it is to state I belief men/women have become replaceable to each other but I can see how human beings would dislike being replaceable.

As for hubris that amused me. Not sure how I have excessive pride when I was asking for help and asking for others
opinions

Not sure why you're posting expect to vent whatever frustrations and issues you projected onto me.

No condescending attitude here I posted a request for others opinions to contribute into my theory paper. It's not condescending if a member didn't understand what I thought was simple wording and I pointed out to him that I get that a lot since what is first grade simple to me tends to come up as college level to others. If anything the one member who suggested that I was just trying to sound like an genius and trying too hard to sound intelligent was condescending.

Inflated sense of self-worth? Really then why would I post for help for others opinions on my theory paper instead of just using established research. Seems like a logic failure on that inflated sense of self-worth part.

I differ on my view of people who study and/or practice social studies a lot of information on human behavior has come up and serves some usefulness to society.

I am quite curious if you are aware your own attitude after all I'm not the one name calling with arrogant snob.

Added after 14 minutes:

* dead thread- I'm responding to the new posts though. Quite odd how I get so more posts after declaring it dead then when it was needed *

[QUOTE=Black Knight;272806]Hm? I just wanted to see what women do when they're left alone. Without men to pin all of the shitty parts of life they can on us, would chivalry survive?

Chivalry still exists? That's a shame.

Quote from Black Knight

f so, who would be the providers and beneficiaries?

Providers would most likely be women themselves and the beneficiaries would be the children they have. It's not too much to expect adults past a certain point to provide for themselves and it's reasonable for children to be the beneficiaries. Since plenty of women are providing for themselves that doesn't seem like a full scale concept that is too hard to grasp.

Quote from Black Knight

Butch chicks? Heavy chicks? What defines the lines?

Neither type it would be providing for yourself which most adult women seem capable of doing.

Quote from Black Knight

Would the populace automatically type-cast the daintiest ladies as stylists, artists, models, housewives, and the 'easy, feminine spots', while the not-so-skinny take on schoolteaching, waiting, transit, and professional endeavors? Would the tall-butch and fat women be doomed to be workhorses and breadwinners, mechanics, custodians, sewer and garbage maintainers all because they LOOK the most like men and therefore should provide the "lady-ladies" comfort, free meals, and an alimony cheque?

No I think you're fulfilling your own women with "masculine"/"feminine" gender roles instead of seeing it as an individual role.

Quote from Black Knight

That's why I'm honest about wanting to see this. It's trilling, from an objective POV. We'll provide them with all of the (female) sperm they need via export, therefore they should(?) need naught else from men. This would be a wonderful social experiment, because the feminists are gonna either get proven right ("a womyn needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"), or have to shut their mouths the fuck up.

It would be a nice social experiment. I would love to see it in action a world without women & a world without men and compare them side by side.

Added after 25 minutes:

Quote from Celtic Druid

If men are gone it's essentially the same thing.

Not really I'm discussing men dying off or vanishing in the current time period so the inventions are already here and the civilization is already built. For it to me essentially the same thing it'd take going back in time and erasing men.

Quote from Celtic Druid

In this hypothetical feminist utopia

How is it feminist? I stated no laws, no rules, no restrictions. Does a woman only world automatically = feminist?

Quote from Celtic Druid

In this hypothetical feminist utopia you describe, I don't think you grasp the enormity of physical work necessary just to keep basic infrastructures maintained. Who will also undertake repairs and update mechanisms?

Robots and genetically engineered/enhanced clones. Though going by science fiction movies it'll be best to put a self destruct button/bomb in each one.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Creativity and innovation requires a stable and functioning society in order to flourish and become new inventions. If you naively think a man-free world will consist of merely pushing a few buttons and summoning helpful robots, you are seriously deluded.

That creativity and innovation can come from women and in fact have come from several notable women. Then there's the fact of how much creativity & innovation has been produced in this time even the movies of today aren't creative or innovative but comic book/novel adaptations.

As for seriously deluded it's not that hard of a concept to grasp men's contribution to todays civilization is the dangerous workload. Yes there are doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc however this labour force is the true crumbling point.

Quote from Celtic Druid

The reality is, this hypothetical future will more resemble a post-apocalyptic nightmare, and after you've eaten the last of the tinned food, and drunk the last of the bottled water, with lighting and heat slowly dimming, machinery grinding to a halt, a sinking realization will descend upon you as to the gravity of your deteriorating circumstances. Civilization won't just die, but you'll plummet rapidly back to the stone-age at far quicker speed than it took coming in the opposite direction.

That's a toss up. It's a fair dream- everything is as it was only no men exist. The only issue is who will do the grueling dangerous labor and that can be done by robots/clones.

As for plummeting to the stone age? I doubt that with the existing knowledge and available knowledge at hand. All it takes is instruction and education and with the existing scientists and inventers it shouldn't be difficult.

Quote from Celtic Druid

There's nothing 'simple' about it. Don't forget you first have to master extracting materials from thousands of feet beneath the earth, then process them correctly and to then undertake thousands of similar laborious and time consuming processes - before even considering 'recreating' anything in a manufacturing environment. Therefore, given the number of women who grasp the workings of such technologies are so few, and the geographical expanse of populations, it wouldn't be practical even if some of those women could transfer theory into practice. Fantasy vs reality.

That's already been mastered and the knowledge of how to do so already exists. All it takes is education & instruction and the women who grasp the workings aren't so few but quite numerous. Plus it only takes a small few to instruct others and as long that small few is behind the workings it shouldn't be difficult. As for geopgraphical expanse of populations- internet, cellphone, television- there's plenty of modes of communication.

It's like saying it is fantasy and wouldn't be practical for 10 scientists to transfer theory into practice with 1000 men in a carbon copy of our civilization where only they existed.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Not much to expand on? Any civilization by definition is an evolving one and constantly changing in order to survive. I'm sure some regressive twits back in medieval times told themselves there's nothing much more to improve on, in so far as inventions are concerned, so we might as well just put our feet up from here on in. Evolutionary suicide!

There's much to expand on from my own desires- medicine, space travel, underwater travel. I guess I should be clearer and state that it doesn't seem like there's much to expand on due to the lack of creative innovative research and inventions.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Personally, I believe nature and/or god intended men and women to be complimentary and not combatants, unlike feminism which has this divisive fixation with pitting men and women against one another with destructive hypothetical premises about a world without men.

A world without men would survive and flourish just like a world without women would survive and flourish. As long as the knowledge is there and there are those who are already educated civilization will not plummet.

Despite my theory paper research I believe neither gender is truly useful to the other in a way that they are irreplaceable. As for feminism intending men and women to be combatants that's a toss up. Depends on what feminism you're looking at after all most MRAs seem to intend for men to be some superior god of animals and women to be useless except as holes and less than men in all areas not designated women's work useless.

As for complimentary I seriously doubt that men & women are complimentary in today's society. My next theory paper will be based on how mens nature towards women makes it incapable for that to be a universal truth.
Keyword is universal I believe people as individuals not by gender can be complimentary to each other. I'll also be asking men if they think or suspect they have this inability to find women complimentary to themselves. I already discovered that apparently my thread gets more posts after it is declared dead so I won't be asking that on this forum.

Added after 8 minutes:

Quote from samofsons

actually ,without men , it would be less than a month before your lights shut off, sewers overflow , water becomes undrinkable and gas pumps go dry. the fields would stop being harvested , the Semi trucks would stop delivering food to your grocery stores. your music would SUCK ,not to mention.. you would all go extinct in 100 years.

not saying that ONLY males do those things... no wait , actually i kinda am. even if women DID put on their work boots and hardhats , with the population cut in half , there would simply not be enough WOMAN-POWER to keep it going.

Fail.

Fail on your part.

Lights going off-plenty of women in the electricial field and work in power companies.

Water becoming undrinkable- water purification factories still exist and it's a rising trend for them to be automatic. With the existing knowledge of how to purify water and build those factories all it would take is instruction, education, and the materials to build more factories when the population increase.

Sewers overflowing- female plumbers and underground workers. The only issue there is the labour force.

Men don't only do those things men may outnumber that particular workload but all it takes is replacing that labour force. It's not that difficult to replace a job when you have those who already know how to do the job and existing knowledge to instruct and educate others. There would be enough woman-power considering the population amount.

Your depiction would happen whether it was a male or female only world if no one in the group knew how to do those things or had access to the knowledge.

It's not about men being irreplaceable it's about the labour force and access/ability to understand the knowledge.

As for going extinct there's sperm banks and artificial sperm has been created.

Neither gender would go extinct without one another considering the fact that an artificial womb is now being developed.

Quote from Black Knight

Is that directed at me?

I type like a sarcastic asshole, but in reality I'm completely objective. I want to see a modern country without any males (and sealed borders with no threat of foreign invasion - but free trade, including sperm imports (XX chromosome only, of course)) for at least a decade. If it rises to utopia, well, we males should be kept out of positions of power and responsibility, for we FAIL. That's what that female MP was saying, and lo, she's a prophet.

However, if it goes to the shits, then she needs to stfu. I'm unbiased, I'd be among the first of men to admit we fucking suck and the feminists are goddesses if this feminist utopia is realized, and among the first males to bash these feminazis for failing should society revert to the middle ages because ya'll couldn't agree on a successful method to maintain this vast nation.

By MP did you mean OP?

As for what I was saying you're projecting your own issues there. Nowhere in at the time did my post about a woman only civilization that you commented on would be a utopia. I also did not state that males should be kept out of positions of power and responsibility.

Quote from Udoli Pixie

The civilization truly wouldn't fall if men were gone unless mens inventions/contributions were also gone. Though considering how many women understand the technology those inventions could just simply be recreated. Civilization has already been pretty much built with not much to expand on evident by the lack of truly useful innovative inventions.

As for those lesbian relationship never lasting....they are now studies on genders choosing a gay lifestyle. Apparently women are more committed and plenty of those relationships do last.

Not sure how a civilization not falling if men were gone = utopia. I thought it meant a civilization surviving and flourishing and after all our civilization is surviving and flourishing and it's no utopia.

As for my new posts I'm simply stating that a woman only world would survive and flourish all it needs is the labour force to do the dangerous work, to group together those who have the knowledge to continue civilization, and instruct/educate others with the knowledge that exists.

Just like a man only would survive and flourish using the same tactics with two exceptions. The labour force need would be eliminated seeing as how men are mainly the labour force. The grouping need would be eliminated seeing as how most men are already in positions of power so there's no need to redfine a power structure. The instructing/educating other men with existing knowledge seeing as how most men don't have the knowledge to purify water, build, or invent.

A man only world would have it easier since they already have the labour force and they are already have the grouping but that does not mean a woman only world would fall seeing as how the inventions are already there, the knowledge is there, and women who have the knowledge exist.

You messed on the quoting.

* dead thread*