I've created a list of rules as below, they will likely change later, but they are here for the purposes of establishing a base level of social order:
ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity. Also, do not post any manifesto's done by terrorists, active shooters, serial felons rationalizing such things, or promoting such things, even if your content does not endorse the message.
TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
THREE: Do not threaten, harass, or bully users; and do not encourage others to do so on or off-line; nor make per se defamatory states at users.
FOUR: Do not post ISM. Involuntary Salacious Material means NSFW material of a manner that was not intentionally made public. This is the "upskirt", "revenge porn", and "private intimate photos" rule.
FIVE: Do not post Porn
SIX: Content that contains nudity, pornography, or profanity, which a reasonable viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace should be tagged as NSFW. Any material of a titillating nature must be marked NSFW.
SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts, individuals who's twitters are less than 500 followers, private/personal information that is not publicly available, addresses, or participate, encourage, or engage in any doxxing campaign.
EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another. This does not apply to satire.
NINE: No person shall use communities.win sites (including kotakuinaction2.win) to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals
TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
ELEVEN: Do not post spam. If you are self-advertising, you must have sufficiently engaged in the sub prior to your post, and you must engage with the users when they comment in your post. Spam will also include repeated messages and comments that are done with no effort to add to the conversation.
TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this. If your POST is arguably false by the user-base, it may be marked as either misleading or unfounded based on it's factual assertions, particularly in the title.
THIRTEEN: If you have reposted something, it will be removed
FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided
SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.
I think you are misunderstanding the purposes of women's social structures. It's a form of communal protection among women in a way that will preserve their status and capital (or even increase their status or capital) such that they will get higher mate choice.
However, these female social structures are highly rigid, and clearly demarkated in hierarchy. A woman's independence from a female social hierarchy is her male partner. A man is an amazing investment for a woman (if it works out well). She can gain huge leaps in status, financial stability, and protection with little more than a kind words, a soft touch, and a decent sense of humor. However, if she has only poor partners, she begins to depend on the social hierarchy for better picks.
The complaint of "where have all the good men gone", I think, are valid. I think so many men have been groomed to be weak, emasculate, and subordinate that many women are unconsciously trying to seek out the best possible men with the assistance of their female social group, but the most influential of those social groups is busy emasculating men to tighten their control over women.
I don't think that IQ is being replaced by social status, it's just that men are not obviously good investments for women early on, and their selection of successful, independent, mature, and self-sufficient men is scant at best later on. I think women aren't seeing very good options out there.
Honestly, a pretty good assessment. To my previous point about failure being nearly impossible, I should probably reword that as survival being nearly assured. The consequences of that on men have been devastating. I tend to believe in the easy times - weak men - hard times - strong men cycle, so the upcoming hard times ought to correct things.
Anyway, any problem with this sort of discussion? It's a pretty good demonstration of what I was asking about. Enjoyable too.
No, I didn't remove any comments, so that should be good.
Nice. Gives me a reason to turn on javascript and post occasionally if there's going to be discussions I can't find elsewhere.