Kevin Samuels Thread
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Arthur Shelby,
- Start date
- Status
- 32,368
- 26,795
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
You know I stumbled upon this Kevin Samuels stuff,
and while I think some of his stuff tips into standard issue misogyny.
I think it exposes an interesting tension between the genders that is unique to our current times.
According to polling women say they want to have 2.6 kids, this number has stayed essentially the same 50 years.
but the number kids women end up having has declined rapidly.
Why?
1. The price of housing in basically every major city in north america has risen dramatically.
2. to afford a house (the primary means of generating wealth in north america) you have to go to college.
maybe even get a postgraduate degree.
which leads to the vicious cycle:
-but the price college has risen dramatically.
-so once you leave school you got a giant student loan bill,
-which makes it more difficult to afford said house.
so that means you probably need to advance in your career a bit before you can afford a house
that means more focus on your job less time to pursue relationships and get married.
By the end of this cycle you're prob in your mid to late 30's at the earliest.
so like KS says
If you pull this off as a man you're 40 making good, money ready to have some kids,
you can simply date younger women.
If you're a woman it's going to be very hard to attract those kind of men.
when they can just date a younger woman and be assured of having kids.
but i just don't agree that this is so much about feminism or whatever Kev is talking about
I think if housing was cheap and abundant,
and college was cheaper, people would get married younger and have kids at a younger age.
and there would be less older unmarried highly educated women calling into Kevs show.
and while I think some of his stuff tips into standard issue misogyny.
I think it exposes an interesting tension between the genders that is unique to our current times.
According to polling women say they want to have 2.6 kids, this number has stayed essentially the same 50 years.
but the number kids women end up having has declined rapidly.
Why?
1. The price of housing in basically every major city in north america has risen dramatically.
2. to afford a house (the primary means of generating wealth in north america) you have to go to college.
maybe even get a postgraduate degree.
which leads to the vicious cycle:
-but the price college has risen dramatically.
-so once you leave school you got a giant student loan bill,
-which makes it more difficult to afford said house.
so that means you probably need to advance in your career a bit before you can afford a house
that means more focus on your job less time to pursue relationships and get married.
By the end of this cycle you're prob in your mid to late 30's at the earliest.
so like KS says
If you pull this off as a man you're 40 making good, money ready to have some kids,
you can simply date younger women.
If you're a woman it's going to be very hard to attract those kind of men.
when they can just date a younger woman and be assured of having kids.
but i just don't agree that this is so much about feminism or whatever Kev is talking about
I think if housing was cheap and abundant,
and college was cheaper, people would get married younger and have kids at a younger age.
and there would be less older unmarried highly educated women calling into Kevs show.
- 22,698
- 45,884
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
Education is a scam and a lie in it's present form, and I'm a teacher.
- 32,368
- 26,795
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Also beyond the meanness/misogyny
I think the core of Kev's advice to these women is correct.
If you are older unmarried woman, you need to be willing to date
a blue collar man or man that makes less than you
because a successful man that wants kid will on average just date younger.
I think the core of Kev's advice to these women is correct.
If you are older unmarried woman, you need to be willing to date
a blue collar man or man that makes less than you
because a successful man that wants kid will on average just date younger.
- 32,368
- 26,795
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
i've said this in the politics thread that college is primarily a class signaling.
and that's a big part of this,
women are very class conscious, they want to date within their class,
and they view a non-college educated man below regardless of his income.
but highly educated men by the time they get out of school and are successful in their careers.
are likely already taken
or dating younger.
leaving the older educated woman in tough spot.
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Ok let’s backtrack here. The American education system as presently constructed is ______________. That I can agree with
- 22,698
- 45,884
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
I didn't know I had to include those specifics because I felt that it was already assumed, but yes I was referring to the American education system.
I'm not saying anyone should be dumb and refuse to learn but the present public school system even in 2021 isn't equitable for all students and even after graduation students are met with predatory loans at the age 18.
But not to derail the thread, yes I do believe there is a classism stigma that comes with having a college education that helps men with dating and hurts women.
- 34,463
- 27,639
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
We are around the corner from polygamy. 90 percent of the women want 10 percent of the men.
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
you can say it however you want. If I’m co-signing something I want it pretty written out.
either way
I separate public education with higher education. They both have their problems but higher education is a business first and foremost. Can that be fixed? In ways yes, but it was the generation before us that broke it. They turned it into who went where and not the education you receive. Just snowballed from there. Why do people hold that in high regard? Well, same reason people here like Jordan’s over Payless shoes. Kinda just goes with the state of society.
- 68,167
- 103,453
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
This is the crux of KS arguments, just wrapped in a controversial, entertaining (and also "pay me") package.
- 22,698
- 45,884
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
You can't separate them though because a child's public education is directly linked into what school they can get into after graduation, and how much it's going to cost them. Public Schools in lower socio economic areas don't offer the same resources or opportunities as schools in suburban areas. That includes qualified staff (teachers), curriculum, textbooks etc. These students are less prepared for college and higher education which means they don't get the same scholarship opportunities, which turns into them taking out more loans that makes it harder for them to be financially stable as adults.
You tell these black and brown first generation kids all they have to do to be financially stable, have the partner they want and the quality of living they want is to go to school and get an education only for them to do that same thing. Graduate with thousands of dollars debt and none of the mentioned benefits.
The whole system is a scam.
Last edited:
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
I agree with you 100%. My “separation” was in their inherited problems. They’re so different they cant really be compared.
the conversation was about why people look at big schools within higher regards. My answer is that American society does that with everything. Clothes, cars, houses, etc.
- 22,698
- 45,884
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
Oh...then I agree ignore everything I said.
Combine a society that runs on unchecked capitalism, with a natural penchant for hypergamy, and a culturally conditioned sense of entitlement.
Blammo...
Ridiculousness.
If a woman "feels" 95% of the men in the world are "beneath her" and the 5% of men she wants do not want her, then that's on who again?
Checks notes...
Men?
Blammo...
Ridiculousness.
If a woman "feels" 95% of the men in the world are "beneath her" and the 5% of men she wants do not want her, then that's on who again?
Checks notes...
Men?
- 2,292
- 2,770
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
Save your keystrokes bruh.
Most of these NT dudes wanna believe everyone woman out here is an innocent babe in the woods, totally incapable of self-reflection our being held accountable for her actions.
You’re not going to convince them that many women are simple delusional because
*checks notes*
Toxic masculinity, patriarchy, something, something.
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,991
- 86,601
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
Liberal conjecture and innuendo is the cause famb. Da sooner we realize it da better B.
- 2,072
- 878
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
What I like about Kevin's videos, is that it's showing the younger generation of future men that (to put it lightly) women thought process about relationships is out of wack and full of hope and no work.
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
If women were truly free, these sort of women that are problematic, would not exist. There’d be no women taking men to court for child support, because she’d have her own thing to rely upon, and the laws governing such matters would recognize a woman’s capability, instead of treating her as the victim. But since this country doubles down upon oppression? Men are going to bear the brunt of such rage, be they innocent or not.
- 57,317
- 60,656
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
A lot of the issues these women who call into his show present have little to due with oppression and more to do with being highly delusional and lacking a reality check imo.
But say you’re right, at what point do they become responsible for channeling their rage in a proper manner?
- 28,208
- 53,038
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
Why intelligent and high-performing women fall for toxic partners
Your successful friends aren't dating toxic jerks because they have low standards —it's much more complex than that.
www.businessinsider.com
- 57,317
- 60,656
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
Bruh
Why intelligent and high-performing women fall for toxic partners
Your successful friends aren't dating toxic jerks because they have low standards —it's much more complex than that.
****** been saying this for years
“Instead, research shows that their driven nature attracts toxic partners, and means that they're used to working hard.”
“Toss satisfying sex into the mix, which builds chemistry, and an unhealthy relationship can quickly become a toxic one.”
- 28,208
- 53,038
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
A lack of awareness, a lack of knowing, due to oppression, is indeed the reason for such supposed delusion, rage. Many Black people suffer from the same issue as well. The question should be, what is “proper manner”? Should we burn, loot, destroy this country? Would that be proper manner? Is such a response channeling our rage in a proper manner? According to white america? No. In the eyes of those of privilege, rage is always seen as unjust, fueled through delusion. So, here we are as men, how do you avoid such peril, the crazed angry woman, that is never satisfied? It begins with acknowledgement, then understanding the circumstances you are operating under. Men are responsible to know about who they are choosing.
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,991
- 86,601
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
I agree but I also choose conservatism which exempts me from these problems. Factor in THAT I'M A HIGH VALUE BLACKKKKKKKKKKK MAN, AND I GOT 99 PROBLEMS BUT A LIB AIN'T ONE HIT MEEEEEE.
- Status
Similar threads
