Serious Isn’t confidence technically misogynist?

[SchrodingersDick]

Implying you’re so confident you can get in her holes, that you can just be yourself around her (yourself is already probabaly misogynist), like she has no say in it and thus has no self agency?

 

[Deleted member 9229]

The blue-haired landwhales and soyboys would disagree

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

confidence doesnt exist

 

[TINMAN]

Being within 5 feet of a foid as a sub 8 male is misogynist

 

[Deleted member 677]

Being within 5 feet of a foid as a sub 8 male is misogynist

 

[Pinpoint]

Yes. But because confidence is a red herring used to quiet your questioning of how to get laid... as a social throw-away dog food explanation for a very serious problem... then you can't expect it to be well thought out.

Confidence is just a cop out/ red herring explanation for something that's generally immeasurable, and can't be explained without extremely black pilled social science that would be instantly shut down. Because they want women to remain the enigmatic gender to many people so that we can give them the humanitarian happyride we feel indebted to give them.

 

[SchrodingersDick]

Being within 5 feet of a foid as a sub 8 male is misogynist

6 feet*. You’re not allowed to be within 6 feet

 

[Pinpoint]

6 feet*. You’re not allowed to be within 6 feet

the top of your head being 5 or less than 6 feet from the ground a foid is standing on is misogynist@

 

[SchrodingersDick]

the top of your head being 5 or less than 6 feet from the ground a foid is standing on is misogynist@

The difference between a charming dreamy guy with a great personality vs an angry lonely entitled misogynist with a bad personality is a couple grams of calcium in the legs.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Yes. But because confidence is a red herring used to quiet your questioning of how to get laid... as a social throw-away dog food explanation for a very serious problem... then you can't expect it to be well thought out.

Confidence is just a cop out/ red herring explanation for something that's generally immeasurable, and can't be explained without extremely black pilled social science that would be instantly shut down. Because they want women to remain the enigmatic gender to many people so that we can give them the humanitarian happyride we feel indebted to give them.

They like vague BS like "just be confident" and they will never explicitly outline instructions for this, because if they do and you fail, they'll have no excuse and will have to face the truth, as long as the instruction is "just be confident" when you fail they can just say - "you didn't do it right".

 

[Pinpoint]

They like vague BS like "just be confident" and they will never explicitly outline instructions for this, because if they do and you fail, they'll have no excuse and will have to face the truth, as long as the instruction is "just be confident" when you fail they can just say - "you didn't do it right".

Yes. They try and trick you on a bamboozlement treadmill just until you choose to give up, or they're out of sight while you were fooled.
With the way people truly don't give a shit about person, help, offer reality, but instead, offer information that leads someone down to kill their determination, or your contact with the person... it really says a lot about general humanity.

There's so much out there to hate I can't believe the incels were the first time this sentience gained such publicity.
Women are poetically proportional to their body/ physical role... within their own inner essence.
We make loud steps while they don't.
We are obvious-focusers while women hide the nuance.
Men aren't supposed to pussyfoot or be highly aware of anything. That's a female behavior.
Men tackle the massives, while women cannot handle them and so they turn their attention inward on the minorness of life.
Typically women sneak and slay men by using minorness/ nuance/ unnoticeable aspects against men.
But now that minorness has given them dominant power, and gender roels have remained hte same. SO they can defeat us in both minor and major this time around.
Women being minors/ incapables to attack wolves/ bears/ other tribes/ etc. makes them completely gender-roled to care about aesthetics.
These days, men cannot be male/ masculine because hte world is already so insulated. So power/ masculinity/ raw dominance is on its way out. Now, the more ornate/ model you are... not how powerful and experienced... then the more chad you are.

 

[Unmerited]

Consider this article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-relationship-benevolent-sexism-a8429061.html

“If anything it just adds to the patronising, patriarchal narrative that still exists around men and women's interactions,” she told us. “You don't buy someone dinner because you're being benevolent, you do it because you care about them and want to treat them, regardless of their gender, regardless of whether you're in a romantic relationship and, most importantly, with no assumption as to what this means about your status in comparison to each other.

The way they are able to rationalise their entirely conflicted attraction to their childish impossibly high standards, the archetypal chad prince charming; these loaded descriptors only serves as evidence to the differences between male and female thought. The idea that an ugly person's value can be predicated on transcendent "inner beauty" is cognitive dissonance, the sort of persuasive appeal to aesthetics that only a foid could be convinced by, the same aesthetic beauty that is not nearly as subjective as westerners make it out to be.

There's so much out there to hate I can't believe the incels were the first time this sentience gained such publicity.
Women are poetically proportional to their body/ physical role... within their own inner essence.
We make loud steps while they don't.
We are obvious-focusers while women hide the nuance.
Men aren't supposed to pussyfoot or be highly aware of anything. That's a female behavior.
Men tackle the massives, while women cannot handle them and so they turn their attention inward on the minorness of life.
Typically women sneak and slay men by using minorness/ nuance/ unnoticeable aspects against men.
But now that minorness has given them dominant power, and gender roels have remained hte same. SO they can defeat us in both minor and major this time around.
Women being minors/ incapables to attack wolves/ bears/ other tribes/ etc. makes them completely gender-roled to care about aesthetics.
These days, men cannot be male/ masculine because hte world is already so insulated. So power/ masculinity/ raw dominance is on its way out. Now, the more ornate/ model you are... not how powerful and experienced... then the more chad you are.

Entirely valid, especially considering that good looks and strength of character (personality, ethics) are not only related but mutually reinforcing. It would be impossible for a nihilist incel to develop strong moral convictions much in the same way an overweight sjw will be lethargic, low energy in both mind and body, completely devoid of organic thought.

Confidence is just codeword for chad tbh tbh

 

[Pinpoint]

Consider this article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-relationship-benevolent-sexism-a8429061.html

The way they are able to rationalise their entirely conflicted attraction to their childish impossibly high standards, the archetypal chad prince charming; these loaded descriptors only serves as evidence to the differences between male and female thought. The idea that an ugly person's value can be predicated on transcendent "inner beauty" is cognitive dissonance, the sort of persuasive appeal to aesthetics that only a foid could be convinced by, the same aesthetic beauty that is not nearly as subjective as westerners make it out to be.

Entirely valid, especially considering that good looks and strength of character (personality, ethics) are not only related but mutually reinforcing. It would be impossible for a nihilist incel to develop strong moral convictions much in the same way an overweight sjw will be lethargic, low energy in both mind and body, completely devoid of organic thought.

Confidence is just codeword for chad tbh tbh

Women veneer rationality. Common knowledge. There's major dissonance between each of their beliefs. They just use a convenient rationalization to exonerate them from blame.
Most people are fucking evil.
Transcendental inner beauty is unappreciated. Virtue veneering is all that it is.
Women want woke points/ virtue points.
Even if they had good intentions, they slide into primality, and defy their own narrative. Hormones.
Even if it were appreciated, the biggest black pill of them all is that even men want distinctiveness that makes that person a better target amidst the masses. And even if immaterials were the bulk of desire... you still got a lot of competition on your hands. And appearance is a major bonus (primally/ subconsciously).
Women aren't veracious towards unpopular things. With their safezone tendencies... they don't even calculate when they're on the negative. And if they do calculate it... then they just scurry off and topic-turn/ subject-subject switch, and lacquer themselves like laidbackers to avoid getting pinned on a badspot.

It would be impossible by their perception for a person to be driven by moral convictions. IN thinking that someone is always dishonest with moral conviction, then that proves the truth of what I'm talking about. Talk about proving my point for me.

There are archetypic arrangements to mankind.
There are inalterable instances to life. Or virtually, because the laws of physics are invariating on the instance.
Like how all humans have mouths, and must eat... that is an archetypic arrangements. Not generalIZING when it is almost absolutely/ generally the case.
Could I liquidize liquid?
No, you are verbing on what the thing itself is.
Can't generalize generalities. In certain degree perhaps, but still, there is a degree where generalizing a generality is simply a correct statement.

 

[NorthAfricanIncel]

Yes. But because confidence is a red herring used to quiet your questioning of how to get laid... as a social throw-away dog food explanation for a very serious problem... then you can't expect it to be well thought out.

Confidence is just a cop out/ red herring explanation for something that's generally immeasurable, and can't be explained without extremely black pilled social science that would be instantly shut down. Because they want women to remain the enigmatic gender to many people so that we can give them the humanitarian happyride we feel indebted to give them.

 

[SchrodingersDick]

Women veneer rationality. Common knowledge. There's major dissonance between each of their beliefs. They just use a convenient rationalization to exonerate them from blame.
Most people are fucking evil.
Transcendental inner beauty is unappreciated. Virtue veneering is all that it is.
Women want woke points/ virtue points.
Even if they had good intentions, they slide into primality, and defy their own narrative. Hormones.
Even if it were appreciated, the biggest black pill of them all is that even men want distinctiveness that makes that person a better target amidst the masses. And even if immaterials were the bulk of desire... you still got a lot of competition on your hands. And appearance is a major bonus (primally/ subconsciously).
Women aren't veracious towards unpopular things. With their safezone tendencies... they don't even calculate when they're on the negative. And if they do calculate it... then they just scurry off and topic-turn/ subject-subject switch, and lacquer themselves like laidbackers to avoid getting pinned on a badspot.

It would be impossible by their perception for a person to be driven by moral convictions. IN thinking that someone is always dishonest with moral conviction, then that proves the truth of what I'm talking about. Talk about proving my point for me.

There are archetypic arrangements to mankind.
There are inalterable instances to life. Or virtually, because the laws of physics are invariating on the instance.
Like how all humans have mouths, and must eat... that is an archetypic arrangements. Not generalIZING when it is almost absolutely/ generally the case.
Could I liquidize liquid?
No, you are verbing on what the thing itself is.
Can't generalize generalities. In certain degree perhaps, but still, there is a degree where generalizing a generality is simply a correct statement.

Now can you please put this in simpler terms for us sub-200IQcels?

 

[Pinpoint]

Now can you please put this in simpler terms for us sub-200IQcels?

Point by point

Women don't have any moral convictions. They fear being around people who keep consistent memory with their ways, but they prepare a narrative that allows them to manipulate/ gain hierarchal ground. It's why women can't be comedians. They don't want their stances on things being memorized/ recalled.

Confidence is bullshit, and people explain away false hypothesis on immeasurable situations to put you on a possum-wheel of perplexion.
Moving and moving until they're out of sight and gone, or until you fail, lose determination and give up to anxiety. And high-inhib max.

Women use transcendental inner beauty as an advocacy to cover up their own superficiality, and attribute their motivations to something less materialistic.

Women don't care to reflect on their adherence to morality/ concepts. That's why the idea of confidence is INDEED misogynistic. But women like circumstantial misogynists. They like to have... benevolent sexism as that guy spoke of. But only if it comes from someone, who if they obey, fits their criteria of a fulfilling dominance hierarchy life plan.
In fact it makes them feel happier to be treated like a cheap whore. They want extremely subtle sexism. Not overt. If it's overt, then they grow uncomfortable and uneased. Because then it's organized, and structured. They want a guy who is dumb, npc, good manipulation puppet.
Women are solipsistic and think they're the only non-npc. They want no intelligence from a guy.
Women would rather dominate their own way than have bondship with a guy unless she's been brainwashed into traditionality.
But even traditional girls want it where she is not psychologically obstructed.
Psychological obstruction mechanisms are the only way to make women stay faithful. Letting freedom run amok makes inevitable entitlement and crashcourses things into catastrophe.

Women simply use their stance on abstracts as tools to manipulate. They're never honest with them really.

EVEN IF women didn't just like superficial things like LMS, looks money status, there's still a lot of selection when it comes to girls who like wit, charm, charisma, artistness, sensitivity, etc. Finding the right guy who can be with a guy like that also has value. You can date down where the crowding constraints aren't AS BIG, like sub4 foids... but still, that's not an achievement, and they may find the desire to rank up more than to fear being alone without you.

Women project men's motivations as being inherently bad if they don't like them. Women construe excuses to like someone who has what they mainly want, and to dislike someone who doesn't ahve waht they mainly desire.