Are you a prepper? (1 Viewer)

[RussTKD]

Sounds like his ex wife got his boat and dog in the divorce.

 

[Galbreath34]

If you think his hate for women is strong, you should ask women how they feel about him...

 

[Firecross]

While fire cross may have his points, rather than the marginalization of men, what I think we are seeing is a generation of women who have learned the hard way that they can't depend on some guy to support them. Lots of the women I know are that way, been let down, guys not dependable, to heck with them. They are getting their education, making their money, doing their thing. More of a failure of men in this culture that men are not achieving more.

40% of the "Breadwinner" women in the USA earn between 17-23,000$ a year and bank on the state assistance. If you listen to that interview I linked, the woman talks about how she was on the Lou Dobbs show and it just baffled the both of them when she mentions the majority of divorced mothers are essentially married to the state.

Men don't get nearly the amount of help women do through government funded programs, again, this is explained in the interview I listed in my last post.

Women only college grants severely tip the amount of women going to college. This is huge because college costs continue to rise.

Affirmative action for women, lots of companies have to have quota hiring for women, which helps women get the job over the man everytime.

Most Women aren't depending on men, they're depending on the state. In order for the state to continue, it relies on men paying way more taxes into the system. The more men take lesser paying jobs and disappear from the workforce/colleges the bigger the burden will be on the state. The state will have to constantly grow to keep up with what is already a run-away government. Unfortunately, men opting out means less taxes the state will have because those men are earning less money for the state to tax. The state however can't just turn around and change because women are now 51% of the electorate who live longer than men on average to vote in candidates that will give them the most state sponsorship.

This has already been unfolding in Japan for a decade now, it has caught on worldwide. The west is slowly catching on as more and more men go their own way by opting out.

I understand its too much of a reality check for some of you to understand this. Quite frankly, most people alive today are bluepillers and are completely oblivious and have 0 critical thinking skills. If you do your own research, you'll see it for yourself. Men opting out is ridiculously bad, the reason they're opting out is because they there are no incentives to participate in the system.

So what you're going to see is the political right(conservative) media tell men to man up.
Then you're going to see the leftist, feminist media tell men how great women are doing when it is only because of the massive amounts of help they can get access to from the state that men don't have access to.

 

[Galbreath34]

 

[Get in the Carr]

I'm not looking at all of the posts but how in the hell did this get to women's wages?

 

[Galbreath34]

Here: http://saintsreport.com/forums/5104560-post54.html

 

[Get in the Carr]

Here: http://saintsreport.com/forums/5104560-post54.html

Wow.

 

[Galbreath34]

The one perfect word.

 

[V Chip]

40% of the "Breadwinner" women in the USA earn between 17-23,000$ a year and bank on the state assistance.

Link? No offense but with your track record for examples, no chance I'm going to take you at your word.

Men don't get nearly the amount of help women do through government funded programs, again, this is explained in the interview I listed in my last post. ^{[citation needed]}

Women only college grants severely tip the amount of women going to college^{[Citation needed]}. This is huge because college costs continue to rise.

Affirmative action for women, lots of companies have to have quota hiring for women^[dubious]^{[citation needed]}, which helps women get the job over the man everytime.^{[weasel words]} ^{[citation needed]}

Most Women^{[weasel words]} aren't depending on men, they're depending on the state.^{[citation needed]} In order for the state to continue, it relies on men paying way more taxes into the system.^{[citation needed]} The more men take lesser paying jobs and disappear from the workforce/colleges the bigger the burden will be on the state.^{[neutrality is disputed]} The state will have to constantly grow to keep up with what is already a run-away government. Unfortunately, men opting out means less taxes the state will have because those men are earning less money for the state to tax^{[citation needed]}. The state however can't just turn around and change because women are now 51% of the electorate who live longer than men on average to vote in candidates that will give them the most state sponsorship.^{[POV Statement]}

This has already been unfolding in Japan for a decade now^{[citation needed]}, it has caught on worldwide. The west is slowly catching on as more and more men go their own way by opting out.^{[citation needed]}

I understand its too much of a reality check^[dubious] for some of you to understand this. Quite frankly, most people alive today are bluepillers^{[citation needed]} and are completely oblivious and have 0 critical thinking skills^{[HA HA HA HA HA HA Irony]}. If you do your own research^{[HA HA HA HA HA HA Irony²]}, you'll see it for yourself. Men opting out is ridiculously bad, the reason they're opting out is because they there are no incentives to participate in the system.^{[citation needed]}

So what you're going to see is the political right(conservative) media^{[Unreliable source]} tell men to man up.
Then you're going to see the leftist, feminist media tell men how great women are doing when it is only because of the massive amounts of help they can get access to from the state that men don't have access to.^{[unreliable whine prediction]}.

 

[Firecross]

Link? No offense but with your track record for examples, no chance I'm going to take you at your word.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo...95-22.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/25-fewer...nt-america
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/is-this...ns-lounge/
Women in Science and Engineering | University Housing at UW-Madison

Herbivore men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/pove...female.htm

 

[MLU]

I'm sitting on five cases of MREs left over from Gustav. In the event of impending weather I stock back up on water and booze and then make sure everything is charged. If the world ends, I'm just going to outsmart someone and then steal their hoard.

 

[RazorOye]

Quite frankly, most people alive today are bluepillers and are completely oblivious and have 0 critical thinking skills. If you do your own research, you'll see it for yourself.

I don't know that what you're posting qualifies as "research." The process at which you're declaring validity and then drawing conclusions are incongruous.

All you are doing is linking some cherry picked stats (which aren't really contextualized or vetted beyond flat numbers), which is problematic, by itself, in the uncritical nature in which you're looking at them. But you aren't stopping there. You then double down on that lack of criticality by issuing these broad, sweeping generalizations that you think are (or have been or will be) the results of (past, present, and future) these "statistics"

Finally, the audacity of saying others lack critical thinking skills gives this circus its third ring.

You've got the process backwards. You don't start with declaring a conclusion and then making a bit of evidence fit here and there.

That's what "bluepillers" did when Roger Goodell levied the allegations against the Saints and assembled a weak cast of cherry-picked, de-contextualized "evidence" to prop up a specious narrative.

Your crusade is misdirected. There might be some aspects of your argument worth talking about, but sifting through the rhetoric and generalizations and doomsday alarmism makes that tedious.

In the end, you end up marginalizing your own perspective through your own posts more than anyone else who is responding to them. You're typing a lot and linking to a lot, but really saying little that's substantive and coherent.

edit:

as an illustrative example -

you link to this:

Women in Science and Engineering | University Housing at UW-Madison

What's wrong with that in the first place? You just link to it and then expect us to (1) assume whatever point you're getting at, and (2) assume that you're right. That's not "research." What's your objection to programs driven to attract women to math and science? It happens at levels below postsecondary, too. I've seen them work very well. I've had female students in them. I've also seen boys-only programs for literacy and the arts. I've seen funding for increasing engagement with literature for boys and have written curriculum geared toward male student engagement (e.g. through the canonical inclusion of graphic novels in the curriculum) because their interest and participation lags, generally, behind girls (and, interestingly enough, there's concern the impact that lack of engagement has on critical thinking and critical literacy... is that a full circle?). Is that somehow objectionable, too? If this is one of the Avengers that appears when you "Assemble!" your argument, you've got a pretty weak squad. I wouldn't want a 98lb weakling in my superhero corps, but ymmv

 

[Goatman Saint]

Of course he's arguing both sides of a point. On one hand he's saying that women are poor, unable to get a good job and stuck on the government ***, yet in the next phrase talks about how the majority of people in college are women. Pick your battle, because there are two different outcomes in that argument.

 

[Yeti]

I came here for a preppers thread. Can the mods please delete this ******** hijack.

 

[Zack Lee]

no, just rename it "Salt and Prepper". We can do both; some people are having fun.