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.

gender equality is against biology(scientifically proven)

nausea

nausea

Fesikh
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Posts
16,596
why our society is going to hell?

simple: it's going against nature itself

male brain weights more than female brain

guess who is more capable of making better decisions?

the politicians who decided to give in to corrupted wemens requests should be polverized with all their lineage
 
Yes, it all starts with sexual dimorphism, but a lot of them don't want to admit about it...
 
Enforcing any sort of "equality" or "fairness" is against nature.
 
Sneepysqar said:
Enforcing any sort of "equality" or "fairness" is against nature.

man I read ALL Celine work, astounding

best writer ever
 
You cant actually listen to what women say. They are destined to be doomed.

Men hold this world together, piece by piece.
 
Waht does it mena if women outsmart you?
 
nausea said:
elaborate ?

Many time girls surpassed me at certain things or tricked me
 
Anon said:
Many time girls surpassed me at certain things or tricked me

yeah, they are "smarter" at damaging others and in trivial matters

mark of SATAN if you ask me
 
Anon said:
Many time girls surpassed me at certain things or tricked me

It means that you are probably low IQ bordering on a mental retardation.
 
Equality is a male idea, a male concept. As a concept, it's actually a good idea and some kinds of material equality are simply necessary to prevent a situation where you have millions of beggars and starvelings who are willing to work for a dollar an hour and who hence bring down the wages of other workers. After all, capital either wants to go to misery ("outsourcing") and/or import misery ("Refugees welcome!") in order to drive down wages, drive up rents and make strikes impossible. In that regard, equality is a bitter materialist necessity. 

Sadly, most kinds of anthropological and historical optimism were proven to be wrong. Contrary to what Marx and Engels seem to suggest in the Communist Manifesto, oppressed classes have usually no chance to overcome the systemic disadvantage they have compared to the ruling classes that oppresses and exploits them. This was arguably their only major mistake: this historical and anthropological optimism. Lenin made some first corrections with introducing this idea of an "avantgarde" to bring class consciousness to a working class that, by itself, doesn't develop class consciousness. 

Another mistake was this anthropological optimism in regards to women. It seems to me that one of the reasons why men made this mistake was because men are more comfortable with the idea of equality than women. Women are so obsessed with status, women despise all low-status men and see the majority of men as nonsexual beings at best, only wanting to mate with a minority of high-status men. Also, the only thing women love more than men fighting each other is the idea of men fighting each other OVER THEM. (If you want an interesting read check out Historian Martin van Creveld writing about the role of women in war, how women love the idea of war and the male warrior, etc.) 

Tradcucks always say that women are socialists or something. Bullshit. Women are perfectly fine with turning society into an anarcho-libertarian area of struggle where the weak perish and the top men get all the resources and the women. Women pretend to be these SJW for virtue signaling and for hiding their true colors. Women are fascists painted in red. Like Hitler, who used the color "red" instead of the fascist colors brown and black, who took Communist songs and let new fascist lyrics write for them, who put the "socialism" even into the name of his party. Fascists painted in red. This is what women are. "Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in her face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." (Sylvia Plath)

I always believe that it's wrong to talk about "third-wave feminism" or "post-modern feminism", implying that previous kinds of feminism were any better. I mean, Christina Hoff Sommers most famous book poses a question: Who Stole Feminism? And the answer to that question is, NOBODY. Lesbianic sociopaths, radical man-haters, nasty whores and freaks did not "steal" feminism; they were in control of the Women's "Liberation" movement right from its very inception. This idea to "re-define" feminism for whatever purposes is bullshit. Our proper goal is to utterly oppose feminism, and to destroy it from the face of the earth as an ideology of devils. And I increasingly believe that it's not even right to talk about "feminism", but that the problem isn't so much feminism but WOMEN'S RIGHTS. 

Women are opposed to equality because they want to be slaves for a minority of high-status men and shame the rest of men for daring to have sexual and romantic desires at all. There are more men who would be fine with women, say, earning more than them than women. There are more men who would be fine with a partner who is taller than them than there are women. Women are not made for equality. A society does not work where women have equal rights: they just use it to make some pre-civilized mating pattern of apes reappear among humans.

[video=youtube]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsxdgW_xqY[/video]
 
Red Shambhala said:
Equality is a male idea, a male concept. As a concept, it's actually a good idea and some kinds of material equality are simply necessary to prevent a situation where you have millions of beggars and starvelings who are willing to work for a dollar an hour and who hence bring down the wages of other workers. After all, capital either wants to go to misery ("outsourcing") and/or import misery ("Refugees welcome!") in order to drive down wages, drive up rents and make strikes impossible. In that regard, equality is a bitter materialist necessity. 

Sadly, most kinds of anthropological and historical optimism were proven to be wrong. Contrary to what Marx and Engels seem to suggest in the Communist Manifesto, oppressed classes have usually no chance to overcome the systemic disadvantage they have compared to the ruling classes that oppresses and exploits them. This was arguably their only major mistake: this historical and anthropological optimism. Lenin made some first corrections with introducing this idea of an "avantgarde" to bring class consciousness to a working class that, by itself, doesn't develop class consciousness. 

Another mistake was this anthropological optimism in regards to women. It seems to me that one of the reasons why men made this mistake was because men are more comfortable with the idea of equality than women. Women are so obsessed with status, women despise all low-status men and see the majority of men as nonsexual beings at best, only wanting to mate with a minority of high-status men. Also, the only thing women love more than men fighting each other is the idea of men fighting each other OVER THEM. (If you want an interesting read check out Historian Martin van Creveld writing about the role of women in war, how women love the idea of war and the male warrior, etc.) 

Tradcucks always say that women are socialists or something. Bullshit. Women are perfectly fine with turning society into an anarcho-libertarian area of struggle where the weak perish and the top men get all the resources and the women. Women pretend to be these SJW for virtue signaling and for hiding their true colors. Women are fascists painted in red. Like Hitler, who used the color "red" instead of the fascist colors brown and black, who took Communist songs and let new fascist lyrics write for them, who put the "socialism" even into the name of his party. Fascists painted in red. This is what women are. "Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in her face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." (Sylvia Plath)

I always believe that it's wrong to talk about "third-wave feminism" or "post-modern feminism", implying that previous kinds of feminism were any better. I mean, Christina Hoff Sommers most famous book poses a question: Who Stole Feminism? And the answer to that question is, NOBODY. Lesbianic sociopaths, radical man-haters, nasty whores and freaks did not "steal" feminism; they were in control of the Women's "Liberation" movement right from its very inception. This idea to "re-define" feminism for whatever purposes is bullshit. Our proper goal is to utterly oppose feminism, and to destroy it from the face of the earth as an ideology of devils. And I increasingly believe that it's not even right to talk about "feminism", but that the problem isn't so much feminism but WOMEN'S RIGHTS. 

Women are opposed to equality because they want to be slaves for a minority of high-status men and shame the rest of men for daring to have sexual and romantic desires at all. There are more men who would be fine with women, say, earning more than them than women. There are more men who would be fine with a partner who is taller than them than there are women. Women are not made for equality. A society does not work where women have equal rights: they just use it to make some pre-civilized mating pattern of apes reappear among humans.

well you are really into politics eh?

but

why do you give credit to what wemeen say? don't you know they always lie?
 
nausea said:
why do you give credit to what wemeen say? don't you know they always lie?

Christina Hoff Sommers was (or is) very popular for a while in Breitbart-circles, r_theDonald and so on. 
So she often comes to my mind when talking about this. 

As for women in general: I think I've reached a point where women having strong opinions AT ALL makes me angry. It doesn't even matter what specific opinions these are. I just don't like to hear them "argue" about shit. The worst are political women. A political woman is essentially a crossdresser. 

Tradcucks seemingly want a woman who is opposed to, say, race mixing. For them, them good woman stands up and says, "No niggers in our white neighborhood!" For me, the good woman sits down and says, "Politics? Oh boy, you have to ask my husband about these things!" 

The best women are those who are nice, sweet, soft and agreeable. If feminists were right and women were all these very individual people with individual preferences and everything, I would see things differently. But since there's hardly any variability among women and they all just want to be enslaved by dominant high-status Chads anyway, it would be best to end this charade with the "equality."
 
modus_coperandi said:
It means that you are probably low IQ bordering on a mental retardation.

Fuck
 

Similar threads

Zhou Chang-Xing
Replies
15
Views
1K
GhostRick02
GhostRick02
LesscoBlob
Replies
43
Views
2K
Cybersex is our hope
Cybersex is our hope
war_with_myself
Replies
9
Views
356
Namtriz912
Namtriz912

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top