I look forward to Al providing scientific data in support of his claim regarding women's intellect being similar to the intellect of dogs. It should be very interesting.

Al Swearengen is actually a lonely man who mans an arctic weather station and has only a fat dog for company, and also he has various internet misogyno forums as well as wediplomacy.net

i know this because god told me

Oh, and technically Jamie is right. Or very nearly right, by which I mean to say totally wrong. Women are smarter than men according to the latest intelligence testing data.

Bump.

One more please.

Mme. Celticfox,

You asked if men could be allowed to stay home to take care of children, while their wives were out earning a paycheck?

Your question is puzzlesome for several reasons. At issue, I am scarcely an authority on relationship issues. I have never been married, for example.

Nonetheless I shall do my best. The thing is, I am not a big fan of rigid social hierarchies. On the other hand, if one couple were allowed to do this, one must become concerned about the formation of a general trend.

It's a complex issue. Sorry if I can't be more helpful, I really don't have all the answers to this sort of thing.

Since you have now agreed that women are more intelligent than you originally claimed, I think this thread can end, Al.

M. ulytau,

I would like to congratulate you for having reached a reasonable stance on the antifeminism issue. Hopefully more men (and women, yes) will begin to catch on and will work to undue the many harms done by feminism.

M. Jamie,

I actually reached the opposite conclusion. Since women have higher I.Q. then men, that makes them an actual threat. Rather than merely pursuing restrictions on their movement and their ability to own property, I am prepared to recommend restrictions on their access to education.

Since women have higher I.Q. than men, it is a wonder that they have accomplished so little historically which really proves their unworthiness to have the same privileges that men do.

However you want to respond to women's intelligence is up to you, I'm just glad we've established that women are more intelligent than dogs and you were therefore talking shit.

M. Jamie,

You will have to pardon me, I had no idea that you and I were still quibbling over that particular point, that women are smarter than dogs. I suppose that yes, to the extent that I.Q. is a measure of intelligence and yes, that recent data is to be considered reliable, then yes, women are smarter than dogs.

I believe that I conceded that point a few days ago above.

But what if we were to subject that comparison to a rather different measure of intelligence? To begin an analogy, one of the signs of intelligence in animals is the ease with which they are trained. The conventional wisdom that cats are smarter than dogs is inaccurate as most behavioral scientists know. What say you to that?

I'm tired of your shit, that's what I say.

M. Jamie,

I am sorry that my ideas do not better interest you, and I likewise apologize that you have let your anger get the better of you.

For the rest of you, I believe that this is the best possible forum for manly men to converge and discuss an appropriate strategy for undoing the many evils done by feminism.

I will have more posts to come and welcome input from other sources.

Why are you apologizing to Jamie for _his_ "letting his anger get the better of him," Al? That's some pretty insincere crap. Moreover, I don't think Jamie did let his anger get the better of him. I think he just realized that discussing this subject with you is a waste of time. From what I can tell, that's a mature, cool-headed and correct conclusion.

Thanks Semck - spot on. Not anger, Al - pity.

M. Semck,

My dear fellow, even if I were to attempt to agree with you, do you not understand how your words most likely serve to inhibit productive dialog rather than to encourage productive dialog? Such behavior is more befitting a woman or a femi-boy than a diplomacy-playing man.

In any regard, I believe that women should enjoy essentially the same legal status as dogs. Women should enjoy some legal protections in the same way that dogs do, but should not be allowed or encouraged to practice a degree of freedom that promotes divorce, venereal disease, feminism and similar social woes. Men on this gaming site should educate themselves about the anti-feminism movement and should participate.

For those of you interested in participating further in this discussion, I would like to bring up some required reading:
Ladder theory
http://www.laddertheory.com/

If you take the time to read the entire theory from the web site, please respond below to what you read. Men only please.

There is nothing anti-feministic in Ladder Theory. Furthermore, it paints them as rational agents that always maximize their relationship utility so that hardly supports your arguments. If anything, Ladder Theory promotes alphamales over lesser males.

M. Ulytau,

I thank you for responding, Sir. Your response gladdens me as I feel there is a dire lack of critical thought about this very sort of topic.

I was not attempting to represent M. Lynn's writing about dating as anti-feminism, certainly not as seminal antifeministic writing.

Rather my goal was to expose the young people to a diversity of male thought.

Are the women of Lynn's Ladder Theory rational agents? In the context of the model, sure they are.

Does Ladder Theory promote alpha males? I disagree that it does. Ladder Theory is presented as a *model*. While implications of Ladder Theory are discussed along with the overview of the theory, I don't feel that Ladder theory itself advocates any actions or changes in behavior on the part of anyone. That I think is where most readers get confused.

What ladder theory does is present a model to explain previously inexplicable behavior. I'm not here to champion Lynn or his book. Rather I'm crediting it in being academically interesting.

It surprises me to be a part of a gaming community that has got to be something like 93% male yet is overwhelmingly dominated by femi-boys, at least in terms of constituency.

How has this happened? I mean in a coke vs. pepsi split, one can expect to see a more or less 50-50 division between points of view. What is even more puzzling is that Diplomacy players are historically a bearded, brandy and cigars crowd. Not necessarily the most macho of men, but masculine in the way Winston Churchhill was masculine.

I deduced the possibility that a lot of the youngsters here have never been exposed to masculine writing, especially those too young to be part of the Charles Palanhuick crowd. Hemingway, I mean, is not really taught in schools anymore.

At any rate, regarding Lynn's ladder theory, it did have the interesting quality of both elucidating and explaining that women do not know precisely what it is that they want.

This is part of what limits women both in their achievement, as well as their suitability to participate in serious dialog.

Women fishmongers should know their plaice.

So True. And together men may restore them to their place. The next selection of writing is brought to you from Roy Hollander, an attorney and one of the more prominent members of the ant-feminism movement. Here is a link to his website:
http://www.roydenhollander.com/royresume.htm

Most of Hollander's writings, especially the passages concerning Ladies Night are fairly pedestrian. But he did have one highly informative text that addresses the differences between perceived male-female relationships and actual relationships. It goes on to trace the evolution of marriage.

I believe that this treatise was titled the "Evolutionarily Correct Cyclopedia" which I now notice is missing from his web site. I would like the interested reader to get a hold of this treatise and to read it, if they are interested in further participating in this discussion.