Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Are women inherently feminists/hypergamous? Or is it (society) that makes them this way?

Are women inherently hypergamous/feminists? Or it is society/circumstances that makes them this way?

  • It's in their blood, they are hypergamous/feminists by nature.

    Votes: 23 69.7%
  • It's a result of society, pushing them to be this way, they could be happy with their looksmatch.

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • Total voters
    33
CosmicJoke

CosmicJoke

Officer
Joined
Aug 20, 2023
Posts
540
I remember a conversation with my mother from years ago, and at a certain point I mentioned (I think the subject was overall about economy, cost of life) that not a long time ago, in the past, a man alone could buy a house, and early in his life. To which she vehemently interejected "no, no, he couldn't" and she started babiling. Then I don't remember the rest but my point here is how she she seemed pissed at the mere idea that the man could be independant [from women]. But the fact of that matter is of course, that he could, right? As a pure result of the absence of women from the workforce and consequently the buying power being only in the hands of the man.

Similarly, a woman I was talking once ago, mentioning the financial "success" of her ex, suddenly had to put herself upfront by saying "but I was taking all the decisions", making it basically look as if she contributed, which of course as we know on this forum, is ridiculous: a woman is useless beyond her holes.

Another one once was relying on her beta provider but confessed me she would leave him one day probably. On another day, she also told me she started having a job. I asked, why? Why a job since her provider was making already a good living? Yes why after all? She answered something in the lines of: "so that I also pay some things, not only him, and to have my own money". Which basically translates to "I don't want to depend on him".

This is nowadays. These anecdotes are from the 21st century. Now if we were to go back to let's say a century or two centuries ago, would these women think this way? Access to finance is similar to hypergamy in a sense, both are markets, and in both cases there is a buying power and the idea of climbing the ladder and "buying" more and "better". In the past, were women inclined to think in such terms? I saw an archive of a video of a woman talking, maybe in the 50s or 60s or so, and she said it was perfectly normal that her role was to take care of the kids, that she didn't want to deal with the work outside, that was the matter of her husband. And I am pretty sure most thought that way, especially if you go multiple centuries even farther in the past.

There is this cliché nowadays, exemplified in degenerate artwork such as the series Desperate Housewives, that the woman would cheat on her husband with the good looking gardner, or postman. But in reality, did it happen historically? We all know about the hunting of witches right? These things happened in the Middle Ages. Women would call out another woman as a witch, and after the hunt, one was burnt alive on a pyre. Well that contradicts the hypergamist money driven cheating driven whores that we have today? The "hive" was anti and not pro emancipation (a "witch" would be an emancipated woman). Edit: I would like to add that feminism itself emerged among the Bourgeoisie, a middle where women were perhaps encouraged by weaker "men", simps, to educate themselves, thus it would confirm that the initial spark came from "men".

So my question is: are women intrinsically evil (evil as per the Blackpill knowledge that we have)? Or is it society that makes them this way? Remember that they are extremely conformistic, and practically devoid of logic/reasoning, they are followers, not leaders, if they seem to lead, they are actually behind a man, systematically, I have never seen an exception to this rule. There was once a debate, during the Middle Ages too I think, as to whether women had a soul or not. Now when educated men arrive at such debates, that tells you a lot about the nature of the female.

If you want my opinion on the subject, I'm inclined to think women are defined by society, and that their biology is just to follow society. The Blackpill tells us not what the woman really is but what it can be, under a degenerate society like the current one. You could equally say that men are savage cannibalists under circumstances that would lead to such behavior (let's say, a post apocalyptic world like in the movie The Road). So yes a man can be a cannibalist. Yet we are not, here, we are discussing instead of eating another human. What separates us from the inferior creature called woman is Evolution. We evolved to be more rational/logical, less immediate gratification oriented, more oriented towards sacrifice and commitment, which is why we will always be more moral than them, and there will always be less cannibalists than hypergamous whores. The enemy in my opinion is society, I see women as a dog, raised to hate us by a vile master: (Soyciety).

What is your your opinion? Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?
 
Women are naturally hypergamous, always have been.

Society thrives when it's kept in check.

I don't believe that makes them evil. We're all lookist. If we had the choice of thousands of women lining up for us, we'd be doing the same shit.
 
It's in their blood, they are hypergamous/feminists by nature.
 
False dichotomy. Femoids are hypergamous by nature but they are also agreeable, conformist sheep by nature.

They are hypergamous by nature but socialization under traditional values (as well as the lack of global interconnection) kept it in check and attenuated somewhat. But niw feminism has systematically removed every cultural inhibition that fouds had, so now as a consequence the hypergamy has become exponential.

Foids are also going to lust for chad but they dont dwell on it or act it out if you have a culture that keeps them humble
 
even in Afghanistan women will risk stoning for chaddam. they're whores by nature.
 
I remember a conversation with my mother from years ago, and at a certain point I mentioned (I think the subject was overall about economy, cost of life) that not a long time ago, in the past, a man alone could buy a house, and early in his life. To which she vehemently interejected "no, no, he couldn't" and she started babiling. Then I don't remember the rest but my point here is how she she seemed pissed at the mere idea that the man could be independant [from women]. But the fact of that matter is of course, that he could, right? As a pure result of the absence of women from the workforce and consequently the buying power being only in the hands of the man.

Similarly, a woman I was talking once ago, mentioning the financial "success" of her ex, suddenly had to put herself upfront by saying "but I was taking all the decisions", making it basically look as if she contributed, which of course as we know on this forum, is ridiculous: a woman is useless beyond her holes.

Another one once was relying on her beta provider but confessed me she would leave him one day probably. On another day, she also told me she started having a job. I asked, why? Why a job since her provider was making already a good living? Yes why after all? She answered something in the lines of: "so that I also pay some things, not only him, and to have my own money". Which basically translates to "I don't want to depend on him".

This is nowadays. These anecdotes are from the 21st century. Now if we were to go back to let's say a century or two centuries ago, would these women think this way? Access to finance is similar to hypergamy in a sense, both are markets, and in both cases there is a buying power and the idea of climbing the ladder and "buying" more and "better". In the past, were women inclined to think in such terms? I saw an archive of a video of a woman talking, maybe in the 50s or 60s or so, and she said it was perfectly normal that her role was to take care of the kids, that she didn't want to deal with the work outside, that was the matter of her husband. And I am pretty sure most thought that way, especially if you go multiple centuries even farther in the past.

There is this cliché nowadays, exemplified in degenerate artwork such as the series Desperate Housewives, that the woman would cheat on her husband with the good looking gardner, or postman. But in reality, did it happen historically? We all know about the hunting of witches right? These things happened in the Middle Ages. Women would call out another woman as a witch, and after the hunt, one was burnt alive on a pyre. Well that contradicts the hypergamist money driven cheating driven whores that we have today? The "hive" was anti and not pro emancipation (a "witch" would be an emancipated woman). Edit: I would like to add that feminism itself emerged among the Bourgeoisie, a middle where women were perhaps encouraged by weaker "men", simps, to educate themselves, thus it would confirm that the initial spark came from "men".

So my question is: are women intrinsically evil (evil as per the Blackpill knowledge that we have)? Or is it society that makes them this way? Remember that they are extremely conformistic, and practically devoid of logic/reasoning, they are followers, not leaders, if they seem to lead, they are actually behind a man, systematically, I have never seen an exception to this rule. There was once a debate, during the Middle Ages too I think, as to whether women had a soul or not. Now when educated men arrive at such debates, that tells you a lot about the nature of the female.

If you want my opinion on the subject, I'm inclined to think women are defined by society, and that their biology is just to follow society. The Blackpill tells us not what the woman really is but what it can be, under a degenerate society like the current one. You could equally say that men are savage cannibalists under circumstances that would lead to such behavior (let's say, a post apocalyptic world like in the movie The Road). So yes a man can be a cannibalist. Yet we are not, here, we are discussing instead of eating another human. What separates us from the inferior creature called woman is Evolution. We evolved to be more rational/logical, less immediate gratification oriented, more oriented towards sacrifice and commitment, which is why we will always be more moral than them, and there will always be less cannibalists than hypergamous whores. The enemy in my opinion is society, I see women as a dog, raised to hate us by a vile master: (Soyciety).

What is your your opinion? Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?
Some are some are not , too bad every decent girl looks for a very high guy
 
False dichotomy. Femoids are hypergamous by nature but they are also agreeable, conformist sheep by nature.

They are hypergamous by nature but socialization under traditional values (as well as the lack of global interconnection) kept it in check and attenuated somewhat. But niw feminism has systematically removed every cultural inhibition that fouds had, so now as a consequence the hypergamy has become exponential.

Foids are also going to lust for chad but they dont dwell on it or act it out if you have a culture that keeps them humble
 
It's both. Women are naturally evil and hypergamist whores but society and current culture do a great job at unleashing and greatly amplifying these traits.

Women are also natural followers, which is why the culture (mostly religion) of the past kept their evil in check and made them pull their weight in society, and not destroy it. There wasn't this enormous sense of entitlement, privileges, lack of accountability, affirmative action, etc.
 
JFL at any of the retards voting for 2nd option
 
Fuck nature and the human race
 
A mix of both, while Women are hypergamous and always will be, Society has def been pushing more and more for them to stay and keep going about with their hypergamous nature with the lack of any real restrictions stopping them.
 
I remember a conversation with my mother from years ago, and at a certain point I mentioned (I think the subject was overall about economy, cost of life) that not a long time ago, in the past, a man alone could buy a house, and early in his life. To which she vehemently interejected "no, no, he couldn't" and she started babiling. Then I don't remember the rest but my point here is how she she seemed pissed at the mere idea that the man could be independant [from women]. But the fact of that matter is of course, that he could, right? As a pure result of the absence of women from the workforce and consequently the buying power being only in the hands of the man.

Similarly, a woman I was talking once ago, mentioning the financial "success" of her ex, suddenly had to put herself upfront by saying "but I was taking all the decisions", making it basically look as if she contributed, which of course as we know on this forum, is ridiculous: a woman is useless beyond her holes.

Another one once was relying on her beta provider but confessed me she would leave him one day probably. On another day, she also told me she started having a job. I asked, why? Why a job since her provider was making already a good living? Yes why after all? She answered something in the lines of: "so that I also pay some things, not only him, and to have my own money". Which basically translates to "I don't want to depend on him".

This is nowadays. These anecdotes are from the 21st century. Now if we were to go back to let's say a century or two centuries ago, would these women think this way? Access to finance is similar to hypergamy in a sense, both are markets, and in both cases there is a buying power and the idea of climbing the ladder and "buying" more and "better". In the past, were women inclined to think in such terms? I saw an archive of a video of a woman talking, maybe in the 50s or 60s or so, and she said it was perfectly normal that her role was to take care of the kids, that she didn't want to deal with the work outside, that was the matter of her husband. And I am pretty sure most thought that way, especially if you go multiple centuries even farther in the past.

There is this cliché nowadays, exemplified in degenerate artwork such as the series Desperate Housewives, that the woman would cheat on her husband with the good looking gardner, or postman. But in reality, did it happen historically? We all know about the hunting of witches right? These things happened in the Middle Ages. Women would call out another woman as a witch, and after the hunt, one was burnt alive on a pyre. Well that contradicts the hypergamist money driven cheating driven whores that we have today? The "hive" was anti and not pro emancipation (a "witch" would be an emancipated woman). Edit: I would like to add that feminism itself emerged among the Bourgeoisie, a middle where women were perhaps encouraged by weaker "men", simps, to educate themselves, thus it would confirm that the initial spark came from "men".

So my question is: are women intrinsically evil (evil as per the Blackpill knowledge that we have)? Or is it society that makes them this way? Remember that they are extremely conformistic, and practically devoid of logic/reasoning, they are followers, not leaders, if they seem to lead, they are actually behind a man, systematically, I have never seen an exception to this rule. There was once a debate, during the Middle Ages too I think, as to whether women had a soul or not. Now when educated men arrive at such debates, that tells you a lot about the nature of the female.

If you want my opinion on the subject, I'm inclined to think women are defined by society, and that their biology is just to follow society. The Blackpill tells us not what the woman really is but what it can be, under a degenerate society like the current one. You could equally say that men are savage cannibalists under circumstances that would lead to such behavior (let's say, a post apocalyptic world like in the movie The Road). So yes a man can be a cannibalist. Yet we are not, here, we are discussing instead of eating another human. What separates us from the inferior creature called woman is Evolution. We evolved to be more rational/logical, less immediate gratification oriented, more oriented towards sacrifice and commitment, which is why we will always be more moral than them, and there will always be less cannibalists than hypergamous whores. The enemy in my opinion is society, I see women as a dog, raised to hate us by a vile master: (Soyciety).

What is your your opinion? Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?
Hi, this is all interesting and obviously an honest attempt at understanding what is going on.

Let me first try to answer your last question: "Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?"

Neither men nor women are blank pages. We all have DNA which gives us instincts, but those instincts are not set in stone. They can be bent/repressed or, on the contrary, amplified by culture/society.

Let me then interject this. You say: "a woman is useless beyond her holes" (a common opinion here). This is obviously incorrect. If you look at the past, you will see an infinite number of women taking care of chicken, sewing, keeping books, making textiles, feeding cows, selling stuff in markets, and so on. In many parts of the world, you can still see this a lot. So, what gives? Useful or not? The answer is simple: it depends on culture.

In most cultures of the past, a married couple ALWAYS corresponded to an economic unit: a farm, a workshop or a castle/palace (political entity + economic unit).

In ALL of these cases, the Husband was the "CEO" of the "firm" and the wife was the underboss. In cases when the "firm" was small (99.9% of farms and workshops), both worked. The husband did the bulk of the hard work and the wife took care of all the small nitty-gritty tasks that did not require the husband's direct attention. To perform these tasks, the wife did the job herself and/or oversaw the children doing them.

In case where the "firm" was big (a castle/palace), the husband was the war boss and the wife was the chief diplomat. She arranged alliances through marriages (it was a BIG deal). In intermediate cases, the wife also oversaw the farm workers and other dependent entities (workshops, mills, etc).

The upshot of all this is the following: Marriage, in the sense of a lifelong man-wife couple, makes sense ONLY if it corresponds to the running of a productive political/economic entity. If the culture supports this, the wife will be both useful AND sexually satisfied. She will be dominated by her CEO/husband, who will be her own personal alpha male, and that will allow her to reach orgasm reasonably often.

Of course, there is a certain degree of constraint in this (on both the female AND male sides), but this is inherent in civilization. There is NO civilization without instinct-constraint. If we do not constrain our instincts, we will simply live like monkeys, i.e. the way we lived before farming was invented. It is the cultural introduction of the stable MF couple ("marriage") that made farming possible (I won't go into details).

Still with me so far?
 
the first one.
 
No matter how much research you do or how many essays you write about that question, you can't know the answer, or understand if someone tells you it's the former one (which is obviously the truth), without becoming solipsistic yourself. Btw, don't hold conversations like these with foids, even your mother. The more you listen to them, the more likely you are to be manipulated. That's the disadvantage of men's innate sense of rationality, coupled that with our inability to completely abstain from pussy-worshipping.

Edit: WTF! 8 voted for the latter option? So many fucking soys.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

SlayerSlayer
Replies
4
Views
437
BPJ
BPJ
LostSoulUK
Replies
10
Views
447
LostSoulUK
LostSoulUK
Swag Lord
Replies
33
Views
984
caineturbat2003
caineturbat2003
NotTheElliot
Replies
10
Views
345
ItsovERfucks
ItsovERfucks

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top