I understand when normies who don't know about hypergamy and the 80-20 rule want to defend women. But when you have people in the manosphere/black pill community who actually do understand female nature tell men they shouldn't be mad at a woman's bullshit cause it just "how they are" is the most faggot shit ever. Like on one level they are technically correct but that is effectively the equivalent of saying that you shouldn't be mad at the stray pitbull that mauled your 1 year old son to death because they can't help themselves. Are you fucking retarded? 99% of people would want that dog dead and laws passed to prohibit that from ever happening to anyone again. It use to be the same with women. Some whore cheated on her husband and was put to death and laws were created to stop that from happening. We have to understand women's nature but we also have force them to not act on it. It's rocket science.
. Agatha Christie, the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen. And what I've noticed is that these women from the past are not only greater artistically, but they are more substantive in character, both in and of themselves, and how they judge men. There's still a lot of fussiness, gleams of superficiality at times, but above all there's a substantive yearning for MEN OF GOOD CHARACTER. There's a personal sense their writing of needing this more than genetically superior bone structure-- so contrast that with modern female writers like the 50 shades bitch, where Christian Grey is basically a white classier version of Andrew Tate, no substance behind anything. All power worship like moloch worshipping animals.
