-
Nobody Is As Ready For Pillowy Mounds Of Mashed Potatoes As Uncle Phil -
'Thanksgiving Grandma' Plans To Reunite With Mistaken Friend For The 9th Year Since 2016 -
Blessed By The Gift Of Prophecy, This Headline By 'The Onion' Has Been An Inspiration For Schadenfreude Memes -
People Are Joking About How Korean Mahwa 'The Ki Sisters' Is Like 'Baki For Women' -
The Slang Term 'Degen' Has Become A Staple Of Meme And Crypto Culture Over The Past Few Years
![Chetty 2015 county-level: p25 mobility by loess/black-model prediction grouped by deciles of county percent single mother single_mother decile [0.0634,0.132] Tew single moms (0.132.0.15] (0.15,0.163] The lower economic mobility (aka staying poor) of blacks can be explained by the higher rate of single motherhood among blacks. -(0.163,0.175] (0.175.0.186) (0.186,0.2] CS { ー(02.0215] (0.215,0.239) (0.239,0.28] % blacks 8 -(0.28.0.544] many single moms "My analysis of the full set of observations at the commut ing zone-level and at the county-level suggest that percent single-mothers is tially stronger n percent black d predictor tha (or any of the other covariates found). Once we crudely control for single-motherhood the association between percent black and mobility is vastly reduced.. It ought to be pretty clear by now sin- gle-motherhood is capturing something quite powerful and that, contrary to Cohen's strong assertions, it is not well explained by race. If anything, single-motherhood mediates the black associa- tion much better than the reverse." * Children of single mothers stay poor.. e regardless of their race Franklin D. Madoff, Random Critical Analysis Blog loess black pred SINGLE MOTHERS DESTROYERS OF HOPE](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/162/284/ab5.jpg ">claims to be robot >not raised by single mother")
![My brlant plarn how Mers Rights Activists will succeed I have a brilliant plan how we will win the war against feminism! We have to... be calm, polite and politically correct (just like feminists want us to) emphasize that women's rights are very important (just like every good feminist does) confirm that equality is very good (just like every good feminist claims, too) adeciust like every good feminist misogynists" or "hate group never use curse words (so that feminists don't get upset and label us "misogynists" or "hate group") never bring up the negative effects of women's suffrage (just like feminists never do) Sure, feminism is spreading worldwide and feminists achieve goal after goal by being aggressive, insulting, lying, fact-ignoring and hysterical, but we should follow the opposite strategy, we should be balanced, reasonable and cooperative True, radical feminism has now reached the highest levels of government, academia, judiciary and media both nationally and internationally, but we should rather write blog articles featuring yet more "well-founded arguments" against feminist demands/claims/stupidities than analyze the underlying mechanisms by which government, business and society become feminist and misandrist Last not least, we should call anyone who criticizes my plan "an agent provocateur" or "feminist shill". THAT'S HOW WE'LL WIN! P.S. Yes, this strategy hasn't worked for 100 years but l am sure it will soon. The first MRA group was founded 1926 ("Federation for Men's Rights") and had goals like 'equal rights for men, fairer laws' and 'more rights for fathers regarding paternity tests. Sounds familiar? These MRAs complained about how authorities side in favor of women, for example in situations like domestic quarrels. And how too many men sit in prison cells just because of mere accusations by women. Sounds familiar? They criticized that the government creates divorce incentives and thereby erodes marriage and family. Sounds familiar? They complained that women invent sexual accusations to win their divorce court cases. Sounds familiar? A British men's rights organization noted that "in the United States []woman-worship is a mania" (original quote fronm 刎 1927). Sounds familiar? Even the issue of what we now call MGTOW (men going their own way") was raised as it was feared that more and more men will abstain from marriage since women's character had been ruined by feminism. Sounds familiar? At the same time MRAs were emphasizing that they were not anti-women, just "anti-ultra-feminism" and against modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties" and who "want all the power of govemment without the responsibility men have to face" (original quotes from 1927) Sounds familiar? They denounced "the inability of a man to get a square deal in court", "gold-diggers", "money-hungry wives", "ruined homes", "children held as hostages to extract the last cent from worried fathers", "the rise of the shyster lawyer, the creation of a new class of parasites" and that "it is suicide for a man to marry" and that "a woman cannot lose in court" (all original quotes from the 1920s). Sounds familiar? MRAs repeat the same statements since the 1920s. Let me rephrase: MRAs hold probably the world record for being the most unsuccessful bunch of guys EVER. They repeat and do the same stuff over and over again.. since the Twenties of the last Century .since the lwenties of tne last Century .and already in the 1920s anti-feminists remarked that the problems had begun decades ago. MRAs failed to achieve anything in the last 100 years. Instead it all got worse year after year, while feminists got all their wishes fulfilled, most of them without even sweating, from harsher divorce laws to anti-men quotas in parliaments. And why have been MRAs losing for decades? Because they are stupid by assuming that they can win against feminists by repeating what feminists say. Or what feminists want them to say. that they can fight feminists with "better arguments when feminists even win with bad arguments or even with scientifically disproved nonsense. that they can fight the al complex" (divorce lawyers, anti-discrimination bureaus, women's programs, gender studies and so on) without a critical mass of upset men. . that they can win against feminists by fighting for equal rights when in most cases the problem is not a lack of equal rights but a reinterpretation and skewing of rights and duties by White Knight judges and politicians. (and many other stupidities) But most importantly: MRAs have been falling for 100 years because they notoriously ignore the main source offeminism: Womern. age.everyday.women. The female collective. The artificial distinction between "good women" and "bad feminists" is the biggest mistake made by MRAs. Most women support most feminist ideas, from custody laws to expansion of welfare for women. But since women usually don't participate in political discussions, the feminist/privilege-loving nature of women remains u MRAs to this very day Don't trust worthless affirmations like "I'm not a feminist" or "I, too, don't like these crazy feminists". Don't even trust your own judgment like "She's an intelligent woman, she would never support feminism". Instead check election stats and check polls that ask specific questions like "Should the government strengthen the rights of divorced women?" or that ask women to rank political issues by priority. Whatever women say and however they refuse to be labeled 'feminist, when election day comes you can be very sure that the majority of women will vote for the political party that l which fools eads to more feminism and more burden on men. That's why feminism infects everything so easily. And that's why it survived world wars and currency collapses without a scratch. And that's why it femastasizes every layer of society. And that's why it stays endemic. And that's why nearly every area with a high influx of women automatically becomes feminist. It's because feminism is ingrained in the nature of women. Even across party lines women form a "Whine Syndicate" with its 1st rule "When in doubt, support feminism". As long as MRAs ignore the depth and the age of the problem, they will lose for another century.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/162/275/983.jpg "general /r9k/ redpill")
!["Findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group's importance to her. In contrast, men's ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e. attached to the group identity)." For women, group importance is mainly determined by the degree to which the group fulfills relational needs [personal friendships], while men place a greater importance on the collective identity that groups offer." "only men were willing to sacrifice for their group "men place a greater importance on group memberships and large collectives." "women prefer talking about relationships, while men prefer discussing less personal topics such as politics'" "women appeared to be only relationally focused, showing very low levels of collective attachment, whereas men were both relationally and collectively focused" "Whereas women's unprompted definition of 'commitment' focused on being 'people-concerned and 'available', more males (and top managers) defined commitment as being task-oriented proactive, innovative, adding value, and being ready for challenge. This evidence is suggestive of sex differences in relational and collective attachments to organizations, and may at least lead to perceptions of women's lesser commitment to companies." "Women were significantly more likely to trust an outgroup member who shared a potential crossgroup relationship connection .] In fact, for women, there was no significant difference in trust toward the ingroup member and the potential relationship target. [.] Men trusted ingroup members significantly more than outgroup members regardless of cross-group relationship connections." Loyalty, patriotism, heritage? What are these strange meaningless words? Gratitude for the society men built? Lol, l'd rather eat broken glass Sacrifice to help the group, tribe, nation? Hahahaha, in your dreams. Long-term consequences? But think about the kids! They're crying!! Importing millions of foreigners? Spreading my legs for invaders? Yes, Yes、YESSS!! Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust (Maddux, Brewer) Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups (Seeley, Gardner, Pennington, Gabriel)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/162/270/68b.jpg "It's hard to swallow if you can't into logic")
![So you hate women for what is basicaly nature in motion? Fle: Monk ing (307 KB. 1016665) I hate thar argument, I hane that agument so much and I ill tell you him to move, to roll over, to stand up, to yel and scream for help to do something People say tht ike #roLo and#8WAG or Its just mature Why are you mas people like sex? Shop being a taggut anon lt feeis good so why not do t? Does not buming to death leel beter han burming to death?I wold say yes it does Just because something is in your nature, lust because 5retrg ispot of your instretsNast because eets goor doesn't meen you shoud do The soman empire fell due to women they caused ts colapse Augustus one of romes greatest leaders knew this about women and considered unnestreined temale seualiny a threat to the state oControl of female sesuainy was regarded酪necessary for the statily of he state. as enoded most eer spicuous y in the absoue vignty ofthe vesas[278] A estai uhú vielated her vow was enambed alive ia ftual fat mmesed sone aspects of a Ronan funeral her lover was esecuted|27이 Ferale sexuality einer If semale seauality runs wid do you know who they go for? Norway's mass murderer Anders Behring Brew gets undreds of love letters a year …·-·-·--. @gr8shay He can r--- me, idm @ImNotTwitFamous: He coulda r--- someone but y'all would bail him out pic.twitter.com/YA40TCtVqi" summa @summer parsons @ImNotTwitFamous ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO R--- BECAUSE ANYONE WOULD LOVE IT lil baby @tittygap @ImNotTwitFamous i would pay him to r--- me 40s Reply to 123 23505048 These men, psychopsths and ruthless kers. Barbarians and savages. These sre the men who get temale c---- sonked. This is who they pick I hate women because if they ave set free they will ruin this world and send us beack to the jungle. 46 No 236570962238723 File 1444 Here is some proof for you James homes the idiot thought he was barman Look at these attractive women who adore him and sand him pictures of themselves in hopes theyiil have his aipha kBer semen sent to them in of prison Is some glediators were considered the peak of male atractiness women adored and tawned over the violent murderous gids You think hey f------ want your? You hink they want the other f------ osers on this site, you weak pencil necked f------ cowards you think you get women homy? You think they pat wet over your whose more attractive a malie mode? Or the f------ manac who stabs a hoke in his stomach and f---- befoe giving him a sed c-- facial why 하 you tink muscles are atractive? A man with larger stronger muscles can rtet more par, and anage and violence onto anoter hunan berg its an ndicator of how goed they ave at kiing others. Some skinny itie s--- or sone fat neckbeard cant do thet They want murdesers, they want pangsers, they want thugs hey wast psythopathic killers Chillisation cent eist if women get what they want. You wat tre local gangster preducing more kids who will just end up e him? How do you expect society to SHOCKING PHOTOS FROM INSIDE THE AURORA MOVIE THEATER CRIME SCENE AND SHOOTER'S HOME JAMES HOLMES CELL to has been seetenced to lfe inprison whout parole, decorated his cellu](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/001/162/307/795.jpg "women explained")
Image Details
934 views (4 from today)
Uploaded Aug 22, 2016 at 10:42AM EDT
Origin Entry
About the Uploader
discord666
Banned
