Why don't women back each other, why do they seem to sometimes deliberately sabotage or go against their own gender?

How so? are you saying that it isn't deliberate that they seem to go against their own gender? That it's maybe unrelated and more to do with specific issues and their own personal perspectives? or that, where you are, women are still so reliant on men that they will defend men, and seemingly attack their own gender because it's interests to do so? They have to keep the men sweet? 

I see... I always try to be objective and fair... and I do like and have tremendous empathy regarding women.. but I also tend to get on better with men.. perhaps because there is this thing where women see other women as competition? I really don't know and cannot explain.

Interesting response.. I see what you mean.. and I get that.. but what about when it's that they seem to go on the attack for no good reason... almost as if just to spite? or just to side with men? Almost as in an inverse way?  

Ahhh didn't know that but now you mention it.. i bet that can happen too. 

My my thrifty.. we are reading a little too much into this... one would almost think you didn't like me with a personal attack like that? Surely not? FWIW I just asked a question.. observing a known phenomenon.. I think you need to ask yourself why it's got you all riled up to the point whereby instead of a reasoned response you felt the need to be insulting and make some whopping and rather nasty assumptions.. Perhaps that says more about the responder? 

Possibly Pearl... you could be right.. but I wonder when there seems to be an element of deliberately going against someone.. I have seen responses to women by women that are way harsher than those given by men to women... I just wondered....

Well thank you for your response.. I think science would tend to disagree re self sufficient and we only have to look around the world to see examples in both the human and animal kingdom of where the female is the main provider... but even so I recognise that your reply represents your stance and I understand that it's quite a common stance in your country. 

In human societies, which is the only relevant thing here, women have NEVER been the providers. Human biology works by transferring resources from men to women. Even in the modern world men make a net tax contribution and women withdraw more in services than they pay in.

There are some limited example of matriarchal human societies though the men still do most of the work. These societies are extremely poor and geographically isolated. It's a complete failure.

When women try to dominate men, they want to fail. They feel nothing but contempt for men they can dominate because deep down they know they know that such a man is weak and thoroughly unworthy of fathering her children. 

For the record, I'm not American. This is an anonymous forum and so far I've been content to let people make whatever assumptions they choose. I'm as British as you are. I could just have easily have called myself FaragianZeitgeist. I tend to focus on American politics because it's the center of the fight for the future of western civilization. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 1, 2017 1:44 PM MDT

LOL you are a  riot.. endless entertainment.. thanks for that.  There's so much your statement misses.. and the role that nurture plays.. so yea in most societies women do take time out to raise kids... so yea this has huge implications for their ability to contribute re tax etc.. doesn't take a genius to work that out.. but that wasn't the point was it.. women are biologically able to provide, hunt, fish, gather and farm... and science is revealing less difference than we used to think.. but I have debated such with people who have your rather intransigent viewpoint before.. (no insult intended there just saying you are of a very fixed viewpoint and I think you would, yourself, accept that) so i know mere science would not convince you otherwise.. but as I say.. there are societies where women dominate, or are the main providers.. increasingly in many countries it is the women who earn more... Does this please me? No, not unless it's by mutual agreement, as I am for men and women working together to compliment each other and to support each other..

I find your telling us how women feel quite intriguing... as an alpha male, which you surely are, I am sure, I wonder how on earth you could know this...

I would never have pegged you as a Brit... nothing in any response I have ever read of yours would have corroborated that.. however, far be it for me to cast doubt upon your claim, I would never have dreamed you could possibly be British.. If I had to hazard a guess... I'd say you have been over in the States for a very long time...

FWIW I don't think that a society being isolated and, by your standards, poor discounts the validity of their system.. just because it's different doesn't make it less valid.. there are many who would question the western societies pursuit of money and all things artificial.. If their society is based on matriarchy then it is...the fact it has survived for many generations kinda show's it's a success.. regardless of whether you choose to accept that.. Re discounting animals.. well you kinda can't as a female is a female is a female.. and thus the one who gives birth... that has implications.. but doesn't mean she cannot also hunt/gather or provide.. Our way may be different, our as in the west.. but that doesn't make it right .. as I say increasingly women are becoming the main providers and science increasingly disputes your view regarding less strong physically means less able to provide. And I think the increasing numbers of single parents do also suggest that the view that women need a man to provide is rather outdated.. Personally best is two parents but it can be done with one - male or female.. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-best-female-pay-equality-in-the-oecd.html

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/08/18/17-countries-where-women-are-the-majority-of-wage-earners/

http://fortune.com/2014/11/03/female-breadwinners/

You are, my fellow Brit, more than entitled to your opinion and i respect your right to believe what you wish, and if you hang out in the States then we know there is a large body of people who share your right wing views... however, be that as it may.. .we do all see the way things are heading and I am afraid, like it or not, women are increasingly competing on more and more equal terms in respect of wages, jobs and providing as in equality.. right or wrong in your opinion, good or bad.. the stance you take is increasingly seen as very outdated and science and society are dispelling many of the inequality myths.. I am an equality fan, celebrate the differences but both are equally valued.. so I don't favour men over women or men over women.. nor do I take pleasure in women beating men at things other than that it does demonstrate the outdatedness of views about what women can and cannot do.. like the myth that women are intrinsically worse at maths.. they are finding it was not biologically true.. and that nurture and societal constraints were responsible rather than biology. I love science me  This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 1, 2017 12:16 PM MDT

I didn't say that women made no contribution to society. Women contribute in all kinds of essential ways. Though men are the primary economic engine of society.

Women today are obsessed with asserting they are just as capable. That's not the point. It's not about what women CAN do. It's about whether they SHOULD. What we should be concerned with is choosing the most prosperous model for society. Women being the main provider has massive negative consequences. All the social engineering we are doing is messing with primal forces of nature and it's likely to cause an economic and societal collapse.

I leaned these things from science and from my own experiences with women. As a young man I was very kind and gentle to women and couldn't understand why they seem more attracted to men who treated them badly. I'd been brainwashed with equality nonsense and taught that masculinity was something to be suppressed. As soon as I abandoned that nonsense, I did a hell of a lot better.

I have spent a lot of my life abroad, so you're right that I've been exposed to lots of other influences. Though I've never even set foot in the U.S.. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 1, 2017 1:44 PM MDT

Oh I see you added lots to your post. 

You can discount animals because our biology is different. Human infants take a very long time to reach maturity. They need more nurture than animal infants for longer. Humans therefore benefit more from a mother that is focused on nurture and father who provides for it.

We can't just flip the gender roles as we chose. It's been one way for hundreds of thousands of years. Women are hardwired not to respect men who serve them. They subconsciously see it as weakness. The divorce rate when the woman earns more than the man is off the chart.

I added some links is all :)  I like to back what I say with explanation other than just my opinion :) There are many animals that take a long time to raise their young.. can you think of some??  

Psychology attachement theory... much studied.. and it can be a man or woman no difference in the outcome.. men are equally capable of raising kids very well... and in some cultures and in some animals that's what happens.. There are studies on humans raised by animals.. which kinda throws everythin into the air doesn't it.. 

As I pointed out gender roles even for thousands of years have not always been as OUR western society believes is right.. just saying..I am afraid there is literally no evidence that women are hardwired as you claim - and if you kept abreast of latest, or even not so latest science you'd know that :) There is equally no evidence that the divorce rate is higher among women who are the higher earners and anyone else.. we must accept too that in the past where women did not work and where divorce laws were tougher.. then women had no choice but to stay married.. that didn't mean that either the men or women involved were happy with the situation...

I do love talking with you... we could have a forum all of our own.. we could literally chew the fat all day.. Quote.".I didn't say that women made no contribution to society."  And i never said you did say that.. which kinda makes the whole point somewhat mute..

The argument *should* vs *could* is an interesting one.. if we examine the language... could means they can.. scientifically and biologically. they have that capability.. which pretty much was the point you made in opposition of that... just sayin... And you would be aware, with your *Brit* sensibilities re language that *should* implies and means opinion.. one should do this or should not... it's a value judgement.. as in the opposite of whether biologically one can do something a judgement, a human and thus rather variable as opposed to black and white... And so you see, you are kinda agreeing with me and disagreeing with your own initial statements.. QED my sweet...

I entirely disagree we should value an economically successful economy over a traditional one.. money is a rather artifical thing... human beings were thriving and surviving long before money was invented and one could easily point the finger at the drive for money and economic success as also an indicator of all the worse things in the world right now.. greed, selfishness and the pursuit of money as opposed to the pursuit of love, happiness and thriving human interactions.. On that front neither Brits or Americans  are top of the league when it comes to health or happiness... 

As to primal forces.. I pointed to societies where the primal forces were different and these have existed since well before our time.. so logically there's no reason to presume that there is one right or wrong way... 

Your opinions are strong for sure.. not typical of Brit middle classes, more akin with other sections of society... however, you do seem to cite a lot of stereotypical presumed info about women and what they want.. I am afraid social sciences differ from that stated opinion that you seem to state as a fact rather than what it is.. your opinion..
https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts7126054.aspx
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-most-women-like-alpha-males

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/


Anyway gawdon bennet me old mucker.. I can hardly Adam and Eve it that we are fellow Brits so let's keep yer barnet on and not get our Alan Whickers in a twist; I don't want any Barney Rubble so let's have a nice cup of Rosie Lee and let's have a butchers at that boat race of yours with a nice big smile :)


This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 1, 2017 1:48 PM MDT

"And so you see, you are kinda agreeing with me and disagreeing with your own initial statements."

Not so. "Should" is not necessarily just a value judgement. For example take the statement. "You shouldn't smoke because it causes cancer and heart disease." This a value judgement in that it asserts health and life to be better than sickness and death. Though the value judgement is based on an objective biological fact about the consequences of smoking.

Men CAN nurture infants (though no as well as women on average). Women CAN hold down high powered jobs (though not a well as men on average). Though what is more important is that most people are not psychologically inclined to do so. Psychology is not just a social construct. It has biological origins that can't be changed.

My point is that you are focused far too much on ability and not enough on inclination. Men and women can go against their nature. They can force themselves to do it to some extent but the outcome is sub optimal. Any society that follows this model will be out competed by a society that doesn't. Human nature can be bent but not broken. Therefore we SHOULD structure society accordingly. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 2, 2017 2:08 PM MDT

Pharma science is funded by big business.. it's all as it is.. all are subject in theory to the same criteria.. we would be wise to remember that....Social science is no less subject to the same criteria..  

The cultures you mention are weak... in your opinion... many would argue that many western societies are weak - but the fact that it's worked for them seems to belie your opinion.. 

My opinion was really just offering counterpoints to your own claims.. i very often play devil's advocate in the interests of open and useful debate.. I almost always offer supporting links and information.. so actually you don't necessarily know what my *opinion* is.. i just offer counter-arguments.. tho you are aware that your opinions are considered very outdated and there's a fair body of evidence that disproves it.. that's my opinion, that on the surface at least you seem to hold some pretty outdated and disproven opinions :P  but it's fairly supportable ..#

Saying you cannot trust women.. is where I draw the line.. you have no proof or evidence of that... it's utterly unsupportable to make a claim like that... I could equally say that you can't trust men..  I didnt say that but if i had it would be disrespectful to men.. and pretty illogical to boot.. thankfully I wouldnt ever engage in such illogical behaviour.. men are all different.. some can be trusted some cannot.. and pretty much that's people for you.. there is NO evidence that women are less trustworthy when it comes to saying what they want.. I did read some very interesting articles that found only unintelligent women from very disadvantaged backgrounds/limited backgrounds/disturbed backgrounds wanted dominant men.. I also read that the men that continually whine that women want alpha males tend to be the failed alphas, as  in they are betas looking for an excuse as to why women don't want them.. it's not that they are not alpha.. it's that they are whiney unpleasant people.. 

History and populations disprove what you claim...but I accept you wont ever see that.. I have always sought to give reasoned debate.. on the other hand you seem to engage in some quite inflammatory and very derogatory sexist comments about women... just saying.. it's a shame... and we know there are a few of that ilk on here, that support your quite right wing stance.. Fortunately they do not make up most of the rest of the world.. and in that I take comfort. 

I take comfort too in that the world is evolving away from the horribly outdated views where women were kept pretty much prisoner in their own homes, trapped often in  very unhappy, unfullfilling lives which served neither men nor women well... and it certainly doesn't serve chilldren.. I take comfort in that science, neuroscience, and biological sciences not to mention reality are disproving much of what is claimed about what women can and cannot do, and what they should and should not do... I think we in the UK are a little more advanced when it comes to racism, sexism and equality... and you know what? the result is that dads get to share their kids lives in a much more rewardign way, for them and the kids...  when I had my older kids, I saw almost no dads at the school gate..... i now see many, as many as women.. and these are happy men who have happy productive lives with happy fullfilled, interested and sexy wives who feel valued and respected :) FWIW i am not anti women raising kids and being stay at home wives if they wish it.. but to dictate that they should just because they are women and somehow biologically and mentally supposed to do that.. is frankly illogical...

Indeed, we're not going to convince each other. 

"Weakness" is not matter of opinion. Strength can be objectively measured. We live in dog eat dog world and the strong always dominate the weak. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying it's a fact. Some strong civilizations are bad. Some weak civilizations are very nice. Though the weak are always overrun in the long term. That is the destiny of Europe if people like you don't wake up. In a few decades when Europe is an Islamic state and you granddaughter is on her knees in a burka, don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm not sexist. (A sexist is someone who believes one gender to be intrinsically superior to the other.) I just believe men and women are different and can't be molded into having the same roles without negative consequences.

Humans are dishonest. Men and women just lie about slightly different things for slightly different reasons. Most people don't have the self awareness to be truly honest about why they do what they do. They just do it.

I think it very bizarre that you find my ideas oppressive to women. They are arguably more oppressive to men because they burden men with having more responsibility for supporting a family. I'm just telling you the way it is. I don't want it to be that way. I wish it weren't actually. Equality is a pleasant fantasy. I'm just into facing reality, not getting lost in idealism.

This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 3, 2017 12:23 PM MDT

LOL you do have some very strong opinions there my friend.. and I could debate with you some more... mainly cos the things you say really aren't based on logic or fact.. which is always something that alarms me.. and me, being me try to throw facts and science and findings at it.. but those who hold such strong opinions will never see anything outside their own beliefs.. 

Strength can be objectively measured.. there's something we agree on.. and in general men are stronger physically than women.. but this is where strong opinions and stating what you believe as if it's fact fall down... cos we all know that there are a lot of women physically stronger than many men.. not all men are strong... and those who aren't, those who are intelligent, funny or just plain cute, tend to have just as much, if not more success with women...  I guess I am sayin that your opinions or assertions just don't stand up in the real world..  

As to assertions that women lie about not wanting he-men and comments like when you refer to me as, 'people like you'  - again you are simply way off track... you just don't know how strong or otherwise I am re that.. you may have missed my hints on that front.. 

It's great that you agree that equality is the ideal - and that's been a point I've made all along.. that it's unfair to men and women, not to mention father's relationships with their kids.. men seem so much happier when they have wives who aren't solely reliant on them and who remain bright, vibrant and interested in everything. I defend women's rights to stay home to raise kids if they want to... but they shouldn't do so if it makes them unhappy and unfulfilled. The good old days where women stopped working as soon as they married were never that good and there were many women who were deeply unhappy, unfulfilled once their kids went to school and who became bored,boring and bitter and whose husbands felt resentful and overworked and in turn played around.. that was a common scenario. Since you are a Brit you will remember all the jokes about children being fathered by the milkman or the postman...and the bored housewife...

But anyway.. that wasn't the reason i replied.. I just wanted to point something out..... and far be it for me to make any inferences.. but did you know you spell like an American?  You sure don't spell like a Brit  - and that my friend.. ain't opinion - it is a fact :P This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 5, 2017 5:15 PM MDT