Comments by "" (@budbas) on "Legion Of Men"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As in my case when I was in my 20s, it was me whose friend zoned her, until she told me that she wanted to be my girl. However, we cannot go further than just being best friend, because we have different faith/religion.
There is something we cannot change in this world. That is principles and makes a man who we are. I won't convert my faith/religion just for a girl even when it is really painful.
I then got introduced to a woman who became my wife for 2 decades now, and we both married in chastity (I never had sex before marriage).
But really, if there were a girl I want to be mine, it would be her. 10/10, highly mannered, smart and polite, makes me feel really like a man.
As for my wife, there is only one quality of her that makes all the difference: everyday with her I feel calm and peaceful.
Not in this life. Perhaps in the next life I could be with her. Nevertheless, we are still in contact until now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brianmeen2158 That was always the flaw of the people called "Academia" in Social Sciences. They sit in the ivory tower of so-called educated people but are disconnect to the subject they are researching, whether intentional or not. They might pre-select their data to support their postulate, and comes as conclusion as their theory.
People called "Academia" in Exact Sciences have to based their research on physical/exact matters thus should be able to replicate with the same result. This condition makes the Academia people of Exact Sciences more trusted and credible than those in Social Sciences. Their flaw comes not because they pre-select the data, but the data has not yet available because the advances of human science/technology has not there yet (ie. Newton law of gravity is good, but Einstein law define it in spacetime concept. At the time Newton live, spacetime has not been researched yet).
This doesn't mean Academia people in Social Science has no good research or produce no good theories. Of course, if they intentionally pre-select their data, it will produce a flaw research. But, they have to limit their research into much more specific subject. ie. when they researching about "Men", they have to limit their research into "Men in US". But that is not specific enough as the error will be high. Limit it into "White Men in US". But that is not specific enough. Limit it into "White Men in US age 19 - 30". Not specific enough. Limit it furthermore into "White Men in US age 19 - 30 in college or graduate", still not specific enough. Limit it furthermore into "White Men in US age 19 - 30 in college or graduate comes from conservative family" .. and so on.
And so, when they comes to the conclusion of their research, they cannot publish it for "Men", or "White Men in US". They have to publish it into "White Men in US age 19 - 30 in college or graduate comes from conservative family which parents are divorced and the kids taken by the father" (probably might be added "live in east coast of New York suburbs").
To publish it under "Men", or "Men in US" is to generalize the specific sample of research. The error would be huge, while it is under the assumption that the research are pure. When there is an intention to publish it such a way by the order of one agenda, the research would be invalidated and lost the trust of the public.
This is why we have found that so many men in this channel against the conclusion.
As from the public point of view, the social science research should be taken as informational only at best and not taking it as a reference or guidance at worst. Each Individual should do their own research to fit their own purpose while get informed that once upon a time in some part of the world at the specific subject, there was a research produced such a conclusion.
That would be huge job for one. The quickest way for Individual to get a conclusion is to found someone with similar background of life that has run their own life into such a case. Richard reeves could be a good man, but his life might be much different than the life of many men that read the conclusion of his research. He might produce a great research but he is not the man to be a reference of the life of his reader.
People will hear wholeheartedly of other people who wear the same shoes but goes to different journey. Their tale will quickly be taken as a reference or even a guidance, far from just an informational, simply because their shoes just the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hypergamy is an evolution of the female. Female always looking for the winner male in order to have better offspring (hypergamy). However, it is also an evolution of male to have multiple female to spread their seeds (polygamy).
When the evolution is mapped to the human society - and as society evolved-, society accept women for hypergamy but then stay on one men, and demand men to drop their polygamy and stay on one women.
For men, the expense for being monogamous is at his commitment to achieve his goals in future. But for women, the expense for being monogamous is to stay and build family.
Just to build a family is never a men's goal, but to make the family survive then be great, is. While to keep the family intact and nurtured its grow is a women goal. There is plenty of reference on all faith/religion (as a primary element that influence the development of society) regarding to it.
We now seeing that women are lulled by their dreams of only to aimed at superior men, and most men are unable to make themselves great in current circumstances. These two factors emphasize the other to further make the distance between men and women.
"...Give us this day our daily bread...For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." - Matthew 6:9-13
Men should fight for daily bread, while women should realized that the true glory is only in heaven where we all call it home.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2