Forum.Over.Net

Starševski čvek

Postavite nemogoče vprašanje in dobili boste neverjetne odgovore! Anonimno in brez registracije. Največje slovensko virtualno mesto. Če ni objavljeno v tem forumu, se ni zgodilo!

MGTOW v sliki (občasno kakšna beseda)

Default avatar

-Q-

Marko je napisal/a:
-Q- je napisal/a:

Samo v ZDA je se pa se moskih, ki jim je sodisce feminizirane druzbe nalozilo placevati prezivnino za otroke ceprav niso z mamo nikoli seksali. Sveta preproscina od nasega geek-a...
Ne recem, da ne. Ampak bodi ded in se bori za pravice obeh spolov, ker krivice se dogajajo obema spoloma. Ni tezko poiskati ven samo moskih primerov, je pa hinavsko.
Ves kaj je hinavsko?

V zahodnem feminiziranem svetu obstaja na tisoce institucij, financiranih iz drzavnega proracuna, ki se borijo striktno za korist zensk, brez ene same za moske. Zakonodaja in sodna praksa je na strani zensk. Policija je na strani zensk. Vzgojni in izobrazevalni sistem je skrajno feminiziran. Vse to je enostranska hinavscina.

Najbolj hinavsko pa je redkemu moskemu, ki si drzne izpostaviti primer skrajne nepravicnosti (da se pa se moskih zenskam placuje prezivnino za otroke, ki ne le da niso njihovi, z njimi nikoli niso seksali niso) ocitati, da je hipokrit, ker si kaj takega drzne izreci. Toliko vecji, ker je to tvoj standardni modus operandi.

Skratka, si ekstremno pozensceni hipokrit. Hkrati pa tipicen feminist pozenscene soyboy generacije. Niso zenske krive za to, da je sistem postal popolnoma feminiziran. Da na tisoce institucij namenjenih koristi zensk ne obstaja ena sama za moske. Krive ste picke kot si sam. In tu tici razlog, da vas vse vec MGTOW prezira. Ne zaradi tega ker zivite tako ali drugace. Skratka, navadna pic.ka si.
Default avatar

Stepni_Volk

-Q- je napisal/a:
Marko je napisal/a:


Ne recem, da ne. Ampak bodi ded in se bori za pravice obeh spolov, ker krivice se dogajajo obema spoloma. Ni tezko poiskati ven samo moskih primerov, je pa hinavsko.
Ves kaj je hinavsko?

V zahodnem feminiziranem svetu obstaja na tisoce institucij, financiranih iz drzavnega proracuna, ki se borijo striktno za korist zensk, brez ene same za moske. Zakonodaja in sodna praksa je na strani zensk. Policija je na strani zensk. Vzgojni in izobrazevalni sistem je skrajno feminiziran. Vse to je enostranska hinavscina.

Najbolj hinavsko pa je redkemu moskemu, ki si drzne izpostaviti primer skrajne nepravicnosti (da se pa se moskih zenskam placuje prezivnino za otroke, ki ne le da niso njihovi, z njimi nikoli niso seksali niso) ocitati, da je hipokrit, ker si kaj takega drzne izreci. Toliko vecji, ker je to tvoj standardni modus operandi.

Skratka, si ekstremno pozensceni hipokrit. Hkrati pa tipicen feminist pozenscene soyboy generacije. Niso zenske krive za to, da je sistem postal popolnoma feminiziran. Da na tisoce institucij namenjenih koristi zensk ne obstaja ena sama za moske. Krive ste picke kot si sam. In tu tici razlog, da vas vse vec MGTOW prezira. Ne zaradi tega ker zivite tako ali drugace. Skratka, navadna pic.ka si.

feminizm.jpg
(98.84 KiB)

Default avatar

-Q-

In ves kaj je se hinavsko?

Da ste taksne in drugacne PICKE, moske in zenske, TIHO, ko pic.ka kot ste sami na forum pripenja sliko za sliko o MGTOW. Da to jaz naredim, bi tema po dveh dneh romala na drugi forum. Sedaj, ko si DOMISLJATE, da gre za parodijo, pa (rahlo negotovo) ploskate, hinavske PICKE. S tem, da tako ne stekate, da si zadajate avtogol. Vecina pripetega je cista resnica. Zato vam tudi je malo nerodno, ko vse to berete.
Default avatar

-Q-

Briffault's Law: Women Rule (Patriarhat, ki zatira zenske? hahaha)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... women-rule

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.
Default avatar

Stepni_Volk

-Q- je napisal/a:
Briffault's Law: Women Rule (Patriarhat, ki zatira zenske? hahaha)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... women-rule

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.

rational.png
(237.49 KiB)

Default avatar

neumnost na kvadrat

naj se moški še tako repenčite nad ženskami in naj se ženske še tako zmrdujemo nad vami, dejstvo je, da eni brez drugih ne moremo. res je sicer, da bi lahko imeli v mestu enega ali dva moška in bi bile vse ženske oplojene :) res pa je tudi, da bi moški lahko imeli posebne ustanove za ženske-rojevalke, samo bi jih morali imeti na tisoče. v tem je majčkena razlika, ampak še vedno eni brez drugih ne moremo.

btw: zgornja primera nista moja, sta iz knjige in filma. ZF
Default avatar

-Q-

-Q- je napisal/a:
Briffault's Law: Women Rule (Patriarhat, ki zatira zenske? hahaha)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... women-rule

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.
women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.

In tu tici razlog zakaj z leti zensko mine veselje do resne zveze z izbrancem pa ce se le ta se tako trudi okoli nje. Zakaj izgubi veselje do seksa, ki je predvsem njeno orodje, da tipa motivira k nadaljnem razdajanju v njeno korist. In zakaj se njena "ljubezen" do moza z leti izvodeni.
Default avatar

Stepni_Volk

neumnost na kvadrat je napisal/a:
naj se moški še tako repenčite nad ženskami in naj se ženske še tako zmrdujemo nad vami, dejstvo je, da eni brez drugih ne moremo. res je sicer, da bi lahko imeli v mestu enega ali dva moška in bi bile vse ženske oplojene :) res pa je tudi, da bi moški lahko imeli posebne ustanove za ženske-rojevalke, samo bi jih morali imeti na tisoče. v tem je majčkena razlika, ampak še vedno eni brez drugih ne moremo.

btw: zgornja primera nista moja, sta iz knjige in filma. ZF
Slika

Slika
Default avatar

Stepni_Volk

-Q- je napisal/a:
-Q- je napisal/a:
Briffault's Law: Women Rule (Patriarhat, ki zatira zenske? hahaha)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... women-rule

Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.
women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.

In tu tici razlog zakaj z leti zensko mine veselje do resne zveze z izbrancem pa ce se le ta se tako trudi okoli nje. Zakaj izgubi veselje do seksa, ki je predvsem njeno orodje, da tipa motivira k nadaljnem razdajanju v njeno korist. In zakaj se njena "ljubezen" do moza z leti izvodeni.

Millionaire.jpg
(120.35 KiB)

Default avatar

Marko

-Q- je napisal/a:
Marko je napisal/a:


Ne recem, da ne. Ampak bodi ded in se bori za pravice obeh spolov, ker krivice se dogajajo obema spoloma. Ni tezko poiskati ven samo moskih primerov, je pa hinavsko.
Ves kaj je hinavsko?

V zahodnem feminiziranem svetu obstaja na tisoce institucij, financiranih iz drzavnega proracuna, ki se borijo striktno za korist zensk, brez ene same za moske. Zakonodaja in sodna praksa je na strani zensk. Policija je na strani zensk. Vzgojni in izobrazevalni sistem je skrajno feminiziran. Vse to je enostranska hinavscina.

Najbolj hinavsko pa je redkemu moskemu, ki si drzne izpostaviti primer skrajne nepravicnosti (da se pa se moskih zenskam placuje prezivnino za otroke, ki ne le da niso njihovi, z njimi nikoli niso seksali niso) ocitati, da je hipokrit, ker si kaj takega drzne izreci. Toliko vecji, ker je to tvoj standardni modus operandi.

Skratka, si ekstremno pozensceni hipokrit. Hkrati pa tipicen feminist pozenscene soyboy generacije. Niso zenske krive za to, da je sistem postal popolnoma feminiziran. Da na tisoce institucij namenjenih koristi zensk ne obstaja ena sama za moske. Krive ste picke kot si sam. In tu tici razlog, da vas vse vec MGTOW prezira. Ne zaradi tega ker zivite tako ali drugace. Skratka, navadna pic.ka si.
Ne vem, zakaj ti meni pišeš, kaj vse se moškim dogaja. Jaz nisem nikjer in nikoli tega zanikal. Če se najdeta dva nezreleža skupaj, ju pač noben zakon ne obvaruje pred bolečino in razočaranjem.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Če meniš, da se ti godi krivica, ne išči maščevanja, kajti morda je tvoja nesreča le poduk, ki si si ga prislužil za nekaj, kar si spregledal." Eros [psi] st. 345
Default avatar

Marko

-Q- je napisal/a:
women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits.

In tu tici razlog zakaj z leti zensko mine veselje do resne zveze z izbrancem pa ce se le ta se tako trudi okoli nje. Zakaj izgubi veselje do seksa, ki je predvsem njeno orodje, da tipa motivira k nadaljnem razdajanju v njeno korist. In zakaj se njena "ljubezen" do moza z leti izvodeni.
Definiraj (opiši) ta trud okoli nje, da vidim, kaj je zate trud.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Če meniš, da se ti godi krivica, ne išči maščevanja, kajti morda je tvoja nesreča le poduk, ki si si ga prislužil za nekaj, kar si spregledal." Eros [psi] st. 345
Default avatar

neumnost na kvadrat

kaj je pesnik želel povedati s temi slikicami?

ko sem pred 25 leti odšla iz veze, sem s sabo odpeljala samo otroka, nič drugega. pa še ta dva mogoče ne bi, če bi gospod oče živel v domovini, pa je bil mesece v tujini. torej sem morala poskrbeti za najine mladiče. denar in vse ostalo je ostalo njemu, od njega nisem hotela nič. še preživnine nisem hotela, sem pa ga večkrat prosila naj bo oče svojim mladičem, pa mu je bilo odveč

vem, da nisem edina ženska, ki večino svoje odrasle dobe preživlja popolnoma samostojno in ji niti na misel ne pade ,da bi bila v kaki finančni so-odvisnosti od koga, recimo od moža/partnerja. in ker je tako, gremo meni osebno malo na živce moški, ki se v odrasli dobi 35+ slinijo k samostojnim ženskam pod njihovo streho, igrajo ljubezen, itd. pa je iz aviona razvidno, da so z njimi zato ker ... ker se jim zdi prenaporno ustvariti svoj lasten dom.
ampak taki smo ljudje in razlike bi naj nas bogatile. z leti naj bi človek postajal modrejši in če bi to držalo bi tako moški kot ženske z leti znali ločevati kvaliteto od sranja. tudi mene je kdaj v preteklosti kak moški razočaral in tudi jaz sem kdaj v preteklosti slišala opazko, da sem zajebana feministka, ker hočem živeti na svojem in sama (in predvsem ker nočem nikomur nastavljati tistega, kar se lahko drugje plača). tako pač je. moških zato ne sovražim, res pa tudi ne hrepenim po nobenem. če pride kvaliteta mimo super, če ne, pač ne. je še polno drugih stvari, ki delajo življenje zanimivo.
Default avatar

Stepni_Volk

neumnost na kvadrat je napisal/a:
kaj je pesnik želel povedati s temi slikicami?

ko sem pred 25 leti odšla iz veze, sem s sabo odpeljala samo otroka, nič drugega. pa še ta dva mogoče ne bi, če bi gospod oče živel v domovini, pa je bil mesece v tujini. torej sem morala poskrbeti za najine mladiče. denar in vse ostalo je ostalo njemu, od njega nisem hotela nič. še preživnine nisem hotela, sem pa ga večkrat prosila naj bo oče svojim mladičem, pa mu je bilo odveč

vem, da nisem edina ženska, ki večino svoje odrasle dobe preživlja popolnoma samostojno in ji niti na misel ne pade ,da bi bila v kaki finančni so-odvisnosti od koga, recimo od moža/partnerja. in ker je tako, gremo meni osebno malo na živce moški, ki se v odrasli dobi 35+ slinijo k samostojnim ženskam pod njihovo streho, igrajo ljubezen, itd. pa je iz aviona razvidno, da so z njimi zato ker ... ker se jim zdi prenaporno ustvariti svoj lasten dom.
ampak taki smo ljudje in razlike bi naj nas bogatile. z leti naj bi človek postajal modrejši in če bi to držalo bi tako moški kot ženske z leti znali ločevati kvaliteto od sranja. tudi mene je kdaj v preteklosti kak moški razočaral in tudi jaz sem kdaj v preteklosti slišala opazko, da sem zajebana feministka, ker hočem živeti na svojem in sama (in predvsem ker nočem nikomur nastavljati tistega, kar se lahko drugje plača). tako pač je. moških zato ne sovražim, res pa tudi ne hrepenim po nobenem. če pride kvaliteta mimo super, če ne, pač ne. je še polno drugih stvari, ki delajo življenje zanimivo.

rejected.png
(151.32 KiB)