Blackpill Masculinity is an actual social construct and More - Studies

[ResidentHell]

It relates to morality and how we ought to act. If there is no morality, we can not act as there is no decision to make if any given action is neither positive or negative. Not making a decision is also a decision. Saying morality does not exist is the same as saying "nobody can act in a moral way." -> This is clearly a prescriptive moral law. It presupposes that nobody has the ability to engage in moral actions of any kind. It is a preemptive value judgement of the whole universe.

I neither agree nor deny the existence of morality. But morality doesn't automatically coincide with will. If a person acts, it doesn't have to be an act that can be morally judged. If no notion of morality were to exist in the mind of any conscious being, no moral judgement could be cast on any course of action. A desire doesn't necessarily constitute a virtue - What one desires doesn't necessarily constitute what one believes is "right" or "virtuous" on any immaterial scale

If one were to lack the ability to consciously make a decision, it would not be a decision due to the incapacitation of knowledge, which means "not making a decision" can also not be a decision depending on the conscious situation of the being in question. A thing that exists doesn't necessarily have to be known. Thus something that can exist doesn't necessarily have to be affirmed to exist simply because it can exist

Further, if you say morality is subjective, then why would my claim that it is objective be wrong? There is no right or wrong if morality is subjective, hence all claims are neither valid nor invalid. If you are a moral relativist, you are not able to make moral claims from within your own worldview.

If morality is subjective, it means "right" and "wrong" are relative, meaning "right" and "wrong" would be applied conditionally per case based on some sort of restrictive criteria (e.g., does not apply to every conscious being in the world, does not apply in certain events). It is impossible to prove that objective morality exists, cause it involves the impossible task of showing that "morality" can be applied outside the realm of consciousness. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it can't be proven, doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist

A moral relativist can make moral claims from their own worldview. But they would just have to acknowledge the fact that like other moral systems in the world, the framework of their own moral system will also be subject to the same arguments in moral relativism, which would only make them look like a bigot

 

[JayGoptri]

Dogs, btw, are nutritionally deficient mutants bred to look retarded and neotenous. It's literally like having a down syndrome child in your home, but on purpose. Women anyone?
3 million dog bites that need medical attention in US every year, yet nobody cares. Why? Neoteny, the dog is never blamed.

I believe you are correct, but just make sure to differentiate the nutritionally deficient snobbery-furniture piece dogs from canine owners who follow the nature path. i.e Chihuahua in small pursues, flat nosed chronically flatulent pugs, nigger-breed pitbulls for fighting...etc

 

[Linesnap99]

You got it, brocel. High effort posts need to be appreciated more and given the respect they deserve. There are too many shitposts and low effort trash in the forums (I'm guilty of this myself).

tbh nowadays members are creating low efforts threds just for the sake of it .

To think that if I was a born a woman with even less intelligence I could have PhDmaxxed in STEM and cruise controlled into whatever I desired in terms of work options

crazy

 

[GooberMcKee]

The only reason women are valued more than men is because they carry babies and raise them.

Say there is a group of 100 men and 100 women of reproductive age and all capable to reproducing. Most men are killed off until there is 10 men and 100 women - you can still have 100 babies within that same year for the next generation, then maybe next year there will be 50 more babies, then the next year maybe another 25-100 and women keep reproducing. Say there is only 10 women and 100 men - you can only have 10 babies that year for the next generation, and it takes years for women to be able to give birth again because they're breastfeeding, recovering, and too busy raising babies so maybe next year there's only like 5 more babies at most.

 

[NorthernWind]

Another thing is that traditional societies enforced both masculine and feminine behaviour.
Now there is still destincion between 'real men' and unmanly ones.
But women aren't judged for their lack of femininity. Or judged much less harshly than men.
Unmanly men are looked down at and often despised despite virtue signalling but unfeminine women are accepted.
Like there are many women who are the opposite of gentle, caring, understanding and other traditional feminine attributes and no one seems to be concerned about it.
While unmasculine men may be bullied, humiliated, not taken seriously, discriminated etc. at the times when official ideology is all about 'equality'.

 

[NorthernWind]

The only reason women are valued more than men is because they carry babies and raise them.

Say there is a group of 100 men and 100 women of reproductive age and all capable to reproducing. Most men are killed off until there is 10 men and 100 women - you can still have 100 babies within that same year for the next generation, then maybe next year there will be 50 more babies, then the next year maybe another 25-100 and women keep reproducing. Say there is only 10 women and 100 men - you can only have 10 babies that year for the next generation, and it takes years for women to be able to give birth again because they're breastfeeding, recovering, and too busy raising babies so maybe next year there's only like 5 more babies at most.

What if you send to death some genial scientist who could construct some devices which could crush enemies very quickly?
Isn't this also a huge loss? Probably more significant than quantity of women reduced from 100 to 90 ( but not from 100 to 10, of course ).

 

[TrueGlassesCel]

The only reason women are valued more than men is because they carry babies and raise them.

Say there is a group of 100 men and 100 women of reproductive age and all capable to reproducing. Most men are killed off until there is 10 men and 100 women - you can still have 100 babies within that same year for the next generation, then maybe next year there will be 50 more babies, then the next year maybe another 25-100 and women keep reproducing. Say there is only 10 women and 100 men - you can only have 10 babies that year for the next generation, and it takes years for women to be able to give birth again because they're breastfeeding, recovering, and too busy raising babies so maybe next year there's only like 5 more babies at most.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zYL-XylC74&t=2s

what movie is this? the scene is so realistic. I must watch it. What a lucky guy to have a realistic blackpilled friend like him.

 

[TrueGlassesCel]

The only reason women are valued more than men is because they carry babies and raise them.

Say there is a group of 100 men and 100 women of reproductive age and all capable to reproducing. Most men are killed off until there is 10 men and 100 women - you can still have 100 babies within that same year for the next generation, then maybe next year there will be 50 more babies, then the next year maybe another 25-100 and women keep reproducing. Say there is only 10 women and 100 men - you can only have 10 babies that year for the next generation, and it takes years for women to be able to give birth again because they're breastfeeding, recovering, and too busy raising babies so maybe next year there's only like 5 more babies at most.

very good point

 

[decafincel]

"Your looks are mostly shaped by factors such as maternal nutrition, breastfeeding, correct chewing, swallowing and breathing patterns etc.

Lmao no

 

[SmhChan]

I agree that women set and maintain the status quo in any society. In the orthodox church, Matthew Raphael Johnson, an orthodox writer, observed that many parishes are not controlled by the priest, but some older woman or women in the community (what we would colloquially refer to as "Babushkas" in our circles). There is also another book called "The Anatomy of Female Power" in which the author writes how in some societies, female power is openly acknowledged and there is a council of women and a council of men that interact as representatives of each gender. He also recounts how young women in these (african) societies were asked if they would chose to be men if possible and they sternly disagreed and said a mans life is horrible. Either way, its over.

The Female of the Species​

Rudyard Kipling

I have read this 'poem' before. One of the most ragefueling yappings of a cuck.

 

[SmhChan]

The only reason women are valued more than men is because they carry babies and raise them.

Say there is a group of 100 men and 100 women of reproductive age and all capable to reproducing. Most men are killed off until there is 10 men and 100 women - you can still have 100 babies within that same year for the next generation, then maybe next year there will be 50 more babies, then the next year maybe another 25-100 and women keep reproducing. Say there is only 10 women and 100 men - you can only have 10 babies that year for the next generation, and it takes years for women to be able to give birth again because they're breastfeeding, recovering, and too busy raising babies so maybe next year there's only like 5 more babies at most.

Why the fuck would the men be killed off? What is the point of reproducing then? If the mortality rate is high, foids can't survive without men (in the past average life-expectancy numbers of both genders were similar), and if the mortality rate is low (given the society is much more technologically advanced), foids are far more expendable with surrogacy, egg freezing. Most are realistically not needed after 30 after they fill their quota. Their health problems are a liability, and there's nothing to suggest men can't raise (only if society gave value to paternity leave and before 'muh who gonna work', with the foids out of the picture, consumers of most resources, society would have a lot more leeway with paternity leaves). I have seen enough mothers do absolute horrible jobs of raising babies. Everyone knows mothers physically and mentally abuse their kids more than their fathers. But sure, keep coming up with arbitrary lab-rat scenarios to feed your cuckdom, piece of rotten shit.

 

[GeckoBus]

Why the fuck would the men be killed off? What is the point of reproducing then? If the mortality rate is high, foids can't survive without men (in the past life-expectancy of both genders were similar), and if the mortality rate is low (given the society is much more technologically advanced), foids are far more expendable with surrogacy, egg freezing. Most are realistically not needed after 30 after they fill their quota. Their health problems are a liability, and there's nothing to suggest men can't raise (only if society gave value to paternity leave). I have seen enough mothers do absolute horrible jobs of raising babies. Everyone knows mothers physically and mentally abuse their kids more than their fathers. But sure, keep coming up with arbitrary lab-rat scenarios to feed your cuckdom.

also inbreeding would skyrocket and destroy that population within a few generations
also mostly man do the child rearing as you say. In tribal societies, the uncle or some relative takes care of the kids, not really the foid.
also yeah, foids are more susceptible to certain health issues as they age, unlike men. Osteoporosis is one of them (their bones get brittle af, thats why old women always break bones, unlike old men).

Also, another crucial flaw of men being more expendable and dying more is that this obviously implies less selective pressure on women. This means that women reproduce despite being genetic trash, while most men die. This completely defeats the purpose of the supposed natural selection.

And if you look this up, thats what they actually claim. That 10000 years ago, 1 man reproduced for 17 women genetically. This effectively would mean that women are leagues genetically inferior to men, since only the top tier men got to fuck foids. The dudes that survived everything. However, this would becomes irrelevant when even dumpster DNA foids get impregnated and give birth to subhuman children.

The argument for natural selection which favors women makes no fucking sense no matter how you turn it.
To come up with some elaborate scenario about what happened 100000 years ago in some tribe of 200 people, to explain what we are seeing now, is obviously unscientific and stupid.
Instead we can look at what we actually have available and what we cant test.
And that's shit like looks.

Humans dont just treat men as expendable, they also do it to useful animals like spider, ants, cockroaches and other animals. They also give preferential treatment to completely fucking useless animals like pet dogs that are literally crippled from selective breeding, like pugs.

Why is that?
It's simply looks.
People will argue that its some biological instinct to hate spiders because they are a threat. Bro, most spiders are not harmful. Also it does not explain why people in places like northern europe dont like them either, since they dont even have poisonous spiders, snakes and reptiles.
Also does not explain why people have a disgust response to insects, and not a fear response, like with predators. Shouldnt people be disgusted by wolves too, if its about threats?

Spiders dont linger around rotting meat or spoiled shit either, so that connection also makes no sense.

IMO its just looks honestly. Its just lookism. Idk why people have this bias and I refuse to get lost in some evolutionary nonsense narrative that we can never prove and that is complete speculation. But I think one thing is certain, its all just fucking looks based.
Women look like babies, they have neotenous features. Humans worship everything that has these features. Kittens, puppies, dolphins, babies, disney characters, fuck, even anime foids are just neotenous stimuli.

All these absurd anti-male narratives about why men are expendable always come down to some fairy tale about what happened long long ago and trust me bro. Yet the same people will shit on religious people and say they make shit up that happened in past.

I think the reason why anti-male people use these ridiculous fairy tales is because it hates their true hate of men. If they said men are just ugly compared to women and I just inherently dont like them so I invent post-hoc fairy tales to justify my hatred, that wouldnt sound so nice, would it?

 

[SmhChan]

also inbreeding would skyrocket and destroy that population within a few generations
also mostly man do the child rearing as you say. In tribal societies, the uncle or some relative takes care of the kids, not really the foid.
also yeah, foids are more susceptible to certain health issues as they age, unlike men. Osteoporosis is one of them (their bones get brittle af, thats why old women always break bones, unlike old men).

Also, another crucial flaw of men being more expendable and dying more is that this obviously implies less selective pressure on women. This means that women reproduce despite being genetic trash, while most men die. This completely defeats the purpose of the supposed natural selection.

And if you look this up, thats what they actually claim. That 10000 years ago, 1 man reproduced for 17 women genetically. This effectively would mean that women are leagues genetically inferior to men, since only the top tier men got to fuck foids. The dudes that survived everything. However, this would becomes irrelevant when even dumpster DNA foids get impregnated and give birth to subhuman children.

The argument for natural selection which favors women makes no fucking sense no matter how you turn it.
To come up with some elaborate scenario about what happened 100000 years ago in some tribe of 200 people, to explain what we are seeing now, is obviously unscientific and stupid.
Instead we can look at what we actually have available and what we cant test.
And that's shit like looks.

Humans dont just treat men as expendable, they also do it to useful animals like spider, ants, cockroaches and other animals. They also give preferential treatment to completely fucking useless animals like pet dogs that are literally crippled from selective breeding, like pugs.

Why is that?
It's simply looks.
People will argue that its some biological instinct to hate spiders because they are a threat. Bro, most spiders are not harmful. Also it does not explain why people in places like northern europe dont like them either, since they dont even have poisonous spiders, snakes and reptiles.
Also does not explain why people have a disgust response to insects, and not a fear response, like with predators. Shouldnt people be disgusted by wolves too, if its about threats?

Spiders dont linger around rotting meat or spoiled shit either, so that connection also makes no sense.

IMO its just looks honestly. Its just lookism. Idk why people have this bias and I refuse to get lost in some evolutionary nonsense narrative that we can never prove and that is complete speculation. But I think one thing is certain, its all just fucking looks based.
Women look like babies, they have neotenous features. Humans worship everything that has these features. Kittens, puppies, dolphins, babies, disney characters, fuck, even anime foids are just neotenous stimuli.

All these absurd anti-male narratives about why men are expendable always come down to some fairy tale about what happened long long ago and trust me bro. Yet the same people will shit on religious people and say they make shit up that happened in past.

I think the reason why anti-male people use these ridiculous fairy tales is because it hates their true hate of men. If they said men are just ugly compared to women and I just inherently dont like them so I invent post-hoc fairy tales to justify my hatred, that wouldnt sound so nice, would it?

People will move heaven and earth to protect this dogshit, cuck-fueled, and egocentric idea, 'foids are more valuable' as well as to excuse foids' behaviours. Like how can men stand for being less valued than fucking dogs? Also, Just how fucking ironic is it when you think most people believe that foids not wanting to have kids is good because depopulation is good, yet foids are coddled in the name of being 'biologically more valuable'?

Speaking of depopulation, it entails such a terrifying outcome to be left with majorly rotting old people as the younger gen clueless about all the complex systems humans have built due to being gatekept by all the childless wagies for so long. Soyciety is ready to set humans back thousands of years if it means upholding this retarded idea.



But obviously, people think of it as something 'better' than the current situation because fewer people automatically better. People blame the population, yet it's actually the society at large coddling and babysitting older generations is why younger generations are disenfranchised. It's comically bad how humans have handled workforce management in the modern times. People past 45 should have been cut off from the societal support to make way for the younger generations.

 

[NorthernWind]

People will move heaven and earth to protect this dogshit, cuck-fueled, and egocentric idea, 'foids are more valuable' as well as to excuse foids' behaviours. Like how can men stand for being less valued than fucking dogs? Also, Just how fucking ironic is it when you think most people believe that foids not wanting to have kids is good because depopulation is good, yet foids are coddled in the name of being 'biologically more valuable'?

Speaking of depopulation, it entails such a terrifying outcome to be left with majorly rotting old people as the younger gen clueless about all the complex systems humans have built due to being gatekept by all the childless wagies for so long. Soyciety is ready to set humans back thousands of years if it means upholding this retarded idea.



But obviously, people think of it as something 'better' than the current situation because fewer people automatically better. People blame the population, yet it's actually the society at large coddling and babysitting older generations is why younger generations are disenfranchised. It's comically bad how humans have handled workforce management in the modern times. People past 45 should have been cut off from the societal support to make way for the younger generations.

Ragefuel when you don't have normal job because some 60+ y.o. normies work instead of you.
I have seen this often.

 

[cvh1991]

"You're not a real woman!"
Said no one ever.
Why?
Why does that only work on men?
The answer is two-fold

1. women have inherent value, you can't loose your woman card because being a woman is synonymous with having female flesh.
2. masculinity as its propagated by women and society largely harms men and benefits women.

According to this study, you actually need to work constantly to maintain your status as a "real man" - Sisyphus anyone?

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-a0029826.pdf

I will now explain point 1 and 2 a bit more in detail:

1. Why do Women have more value
a) TL;DR Water Wet, the only thing that makes a woman a woman is her looks
I don't believe in evo-psych sorry. I think it's even completely unnecessary to recount elaborate fables for certain human behaviors, when the same behaviors could simply be explained by narcissism.

Besides, the entire discussion usually slips into female-worship when you bring up evolution, because the implication that for instance "men are disposable" implies that all women are somehow 10/10 genetically perfect and healthy creatures, since the majority of them reproduce. So all women have perfect genes, and if we just let women reproduce with chads, everyone would be 10/10?

This is retarded and foid worship. Especially given that the fetus spends 9 months inside the foid growing, yet somehow only the males sperm is responsible for ALL the traits the child has? Again, foid worship because it leaves the females responsibility out of the equation. If anything the health and nutritional profile of the mother is WAY more important than DNA. Look into nutrition please, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A. Price is a good starting point. Your looks are mostly shaped by factors such as maternal nutrition, breastfeeding, correct chewing, swallowing and breathing patterns etc.

Good article on the suppression of medical data showing that animal fats are good for you:

The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie

The Long Read: In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

www.theguardian.com

Neoteny in women is also often not the result of sexual dimorphism but simply nutritional degeneration. It is just not as apparent in women because women, unlike men, profit from looking neotenous. If the genders were healthy and fully developed after being raised on the correct diet, sexual dimorphism would be reduced greatly.

"Sorry sweaty its just natural selection" - so why does the majority of women reproduce? This is a simple logical fallacy, which, if brought to its conclusion, implies women somehow are more healthy, genetically superior and smarter than men. This is foid-worship, without a doubt.

So, I propose an alternative theory for why women are more valued, with a different starting presupposition:

1. Men respond to neoteny in any form, puppies, children, women with parental instinct (origin of instinct is debatable)
2. Women do everything in their power to exaggerate sexual dimorphism and increase neoteny (Esther Vilar wrote about this in her 1971 book "The Manipulated Man")
3. The mechanism (for lack of a better word) that makes men forgive women, is the same mechanism that makes men forgive a dog for shitting on the rug.

Dogs, btw, are nutritionally deficient mutants bred to look retarded and neotenous. It's literally like having a down syndrome child in your home, but on purpose. Women anyone?
3 million dog bites that need medical attention in US every year, yet nobody cares. Why? Neoteny, the dog is never blamed. If it was a hyena people would put it through meat grinder and applaud the person doing it.
It's the same mechanism that shields women from blame. It's just their looks. Stupid example to make a point: If a woman looked like a man, but acted the same, would her behavior be remotely acceptable? No, of course not -> ALWAYS genderswap in your head. Use faceapp on bitches to see what they would look like as men, then you can tell their actual nature. Some bitches look like thugs when genderswapped and their behavior always matches the looks.

So, the only thing that keeps women from getting their register pounded six days from tomorrow is their looks. Obviously.

b) INSANE female in-group bias (4.5 times the one men have, men have ZERO - study below)

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494

Now, this one is less discussed and may come as a surprise to some here.
1. women are the only group in society that has innate in-group preference for their own gender
2. this means women naturally form a "herd" or "hive"
3. women trust women; men trust women; men fight men; ->society

That means, society is only women. Men fighting to get female validation is an attempt to get BACK into society.
ALL men are viewed as and out-group by both men and women. Every man is a stranger effectively.
The only way to get away from this, is by being accepted by women. If one woman accepts you, all do and thus, you are part of society (which is only women).
That's why people always act suspicious around single males, but not around men with women.

What that means for us is that the female in-group dictates which traits men need to display to get access to their in-group. Aka, women define what masculinity is.
As always, everything women say is projection.
Femininity is a social construct, designed to encourage certain behaviors in men by negation. These behaviors are then called "Masculinity."

Example:
Women act weak and helpless, there for its Masculine to be strong and help women (Female hypoagency).
This is also a classic manipulation tactic. The easiest way to manipulate people is by giving them what they want, because people don't question compliments (Just world fallacy + Fundamental Attribution Error).

What they do is basically pretend to be weak so the man feels empowered in his pseudo "masculinity" (which is only contingent on women liking him). That makes the man feel powerful and in charge, while she is actually in power and retains plausible deniability.

In reality, women are extremely powerful. This can not be stated enough. Women are infinitely more powerful than men. Their in-group preference alone makes them unstoppable. Imagine having 50% of society unconditionally supporting you + simps worshipping you and ready to kill another man at your order.

The reason why women project that there has to be a patriarchy is because it matches their IRL experience of life.
They constantly cheat the system by getting support from other women. They are like the mafia, but its half of society + simps as their cronies.

Additionally, women control 80% of customer spending or more, depending on sector:

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

View attachment 744382

This statistic alone should send shivers down your spine.
The implication here is that 40% of the money women spend comes from men, AT THE VERY LEAST.
Furthermore, women hold most of the wealth.

More studies here:

http://www.mrarchivist.com/data/

An additional study where they made men and women play an online RPG together. After some time, the women held the majority of the resources and power, while engaging in less risk taking behavior (fighting, dying, competing) -> men gave them all their resources. Even in a video game.



This means exactly what it sounds like.
4.5 in-group preference = women form a large, coherent hive-body with no individualism. This also makes them lesbian.
Men fuck each other. Up.
TL;DR of study:
1. women have much higher in-group bias for other women, communicate much more, have stronger networks to support each other - sisterhood mafia, women are jews
2. men kill each other but paradoxically trust women instantly and surrender all their resources to them
3. as result women are extremely empowered with both males serving them and providing them with resources while women take zero risks of their own
4. society. study link below.

How women organize social networks different from men - Scientific Reports

Superpositions of social networks, such as communication, friendship, or trade networks, are called multiplex networks, forming the structural backbone of human societies. Novel datasets now allow quantification and exploration of multiplex networks. Here we study gender-specific differences of...

www.nature.com

That means, women are in total control of society on any level. They dictate beliefs, thoughts, how men view themselves, who gets big on social media, they dictate the entire market through their spending etc...
I want you to pay attention on livestreams, where the money comes from when they do superchats and shit.

I think even Karl Marx wrote that you can't start a revolution with men. You kickstart the foids first and the men follow.

How Marx and Engels fought for women’s liberation

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were champions of women’s liberation, both in theory and in practice, in public and in private.1 Important work has already been published exploring both Marx’s and Engels’s writings about women and the family, and developing… Continue Reading →

isj.org.uk

It all comes down to something we all are familar with: Briffaults law
Briffault's law states:


Now, in the light of all of the above, consider the insane power women hold in society. It's truly staggering how powerless men are.
Please think about this:
How pathetic, I can't stress this enough, HOW PATHETIC is it to tell young men to "just go to the gym" in the light of this?
How absolutely comical is it to make young men participate in a race this rigged?

The biggest pill is the genderpill: IF YOU ARE BORN MALE ITS OVER
That's why "masculinity" doesn't exist outside the context of what women want, that's why you can loose it. It's a passport to society that can be revoked by women at any time. It's a conditional surrender of your individuality and dignity in favor of women.

LASTLY: IF YOU CHASE MONEY, YOU ALSO SERVE WOMEN
If it isn't obvious at this point:

1. women control all the wealth, directly and indirectly
2. if you want to be successful in any way financially, you have to cater to women
3. by chasing money you indirectly support women by providing them services and further exploiting men
4. to chase money means to compete with other men for female validation, women don't compete like that, they support each other (4.5 in-group pref)
5. women act just like jewsh with their retarded-tier high in-group preference and nepotism. If you go along with this, you're a jew. A female with a male body would just be jew tbh.

Chasing money is a feminine trait. It's female centered, it serves females, it gets you female attention -> its feminine

There's a reason why it says in the Gospels, you can either serve God or Mammon, not both. A man can only have one master.


- Matthew 6:24, KJV

Tags:
@lifefuel @MortonZnk @M.Yass @Med Amine @Tarquinius

I’m at work so haven’t finished reading it all the way (will later), but this part here is outstandingly high IQ:
> “So, the only thing that keeps women from getting their register pounded six days from tomorrow is their looks. …
b) INSANE female in-group bias (4.5 times the one men have, men have ZERO - study below)
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
…
1. women are the only group in society that has innate in-group preference for their own gender
2. this means women naturally form a "herd" or "hive"
3. women trust women; men trust women; men fight men; ->society
That means, society is only women. Men fighting to get female validation is an attempt to get BACK into society.
ALL men are viewed as and out-group by both men and women.”

Looking forward to finishing this later We need more in depth analytical posts like this. Cheers

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

1. women have inherent value, you can't loose your woman card because being a woman is synonymous with having female flesh.

they can and do lose their woman card, it's called aging and infertility

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

Masculinity and femininity as concepts are a social construct, because all language is a social construct. But these concepts are used to express the physical existance of sexual dimorphism, a biological construct, that exists regardless if we can generate abstract thinking or not. Some masculine or feminine traits are binary, they only exist in one of the genders, only men have penises and only women have a vagina, for example. Other traits we can say they exist on a spectrum, men are more likely to be physically violent than women, on average, even tho women are also capable of behaving physically violent, obviously, and then it is accurate to say that the higher probability that men will behave physically violent or have physical violence ideations, even if its not always the case comparing all humans, is a masculine trait, this which is also a product of the physical variation in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology between men and women, for example. Therefore masculinity is not an actual social(abstract) construct, its a physical one that exists even if we were all braindead.
But i didnt read your post yet, just the title. I will and try to understand what you mean.

 

[Wizardmaxxer]

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

women have more value than men due to the simple fact that men give them more value because they want to please them as to be able to mate and because men themselves know they are more dispensible, why? because its a strategy that has worked throught our evolution. by assuming the role as proctectors and providors men had to be more corageous, more willing to take risks, have more physical prowess, be generous and willing to share resources with women and with the community, to be respected, be ambicious and rank up in social hierachy and further secure conditions to be able to provide in the future, as well as be healthy, have a robust immune system etc that she could expect to pass to her offspring. all things we consider masculine traits, or chadness as you guys like to say, traits that attract women, and they are and should be skilled in identifying this trates, instinctively. if women didnt mate wisely and chose man uncapable of providing, she would have an unsucessefull pregnancy or offspring, she wouldnt be able to provide for herself with a baby on her belly and her less powerfull body that got specialized for giving birth. birth was a big investment and big risk for a woman, so naturally she has evolved to want safety, provision and a trusting partner that will take care of her. and as you said well, men has co evolved to give this things to her and to have the abilities to do so, directly or indirectly the things men search in his life are things that ultimately will lead them to get laid, even waging wars with other tribes to steal their women. doesnt mean such men willing, simps are overlly nice in a fake and pathethic way, with little sense of pride or self respect because they are desperate, and women will only go for such types as a last resort, women dont want weak men, understandably.
Men will fuck anything that looks fertile as short term mating strategy, since choosing a bad mate is not very costly, they dont have to carry the baby and they can impregnate another woman on the very same day. as a long term mating strategy men can be more picky too, but never as much as women. therefore even if women compete in mating too, by trying to look as fertile as they can for example or by bitching about other competitor women as to decrease their percieved value, they have much bigger offer of mates since men are much easier to get so they have both more need and more priviledge to be more demanding in their choices.

 

[GeckoBus]

women have more value than men due to the simple fact that men give them more value because they want to please them as to be able to mate and because men themselves know they are more dispensible, why? because its a strategy that has worked throught our evolution. by assuming the role as proctectors and providors men had to be more corageous, more willing to take risks, have more physical prowess, be generous and willing to share resources with women and with the community, to be respected, be ambicious and rank up in social hierachy and further secure conditions to be able to provide in the future, as well as be healthy, have a robust immune system etc that she could expect to pass to her offspring. all things we consider masculine traits, or chadness as you guys like to say, traits that attract women, and they are and should be skilled in identifying this trates, instinctively. if women didnt mate wisely and chose man uncapable of providing, she would have an unsucessefull pregnancy or offspring, she wouldnt be able to provide for herself with a baby on her belly and her less powerfull body that got specialized for giving birth. birth was a big investment and big risk for a woman, so naturally she has evolved to want safety, provision and a trusting partner that will take care of her. and as you said well, men has co evolved to give this things to her and to have the abilities to do so, directly or indirectly the things men search in his life are things that ultimately will lead them to get laid, even waging wars with other tribes to steal their women. doesnt mean such men willing, simps are overlly nice in a fake and pathethic way, with little sense of pride or self respect because they are desperate, and women will only go for such types as a last resort, women dont want weak men, understandably.
Men will fuck anything that looks fertile as short term mating strategy, since choosing a bad mate is not very costly, they dont have to carry the baby and they can impregnate another woman on the very same day. as a long term mating strategy men can be more picky too, but never as much as women. therefore even if women compete in mating too, by trying to look as fertile as they can for example or by bitching about other competitor women as to decrease their percieved value, they have much bigger offer of mates since men are much easier to get so they have both more need and more priviledge to be more demanding in their choices.

ok and where is the selective pressure on women?
they dont get selected or what? they just all reproduce, despite being genetic trash?
how is that an advantage, it would lead to massive degeneration

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

ok and where is the selective pressure on women?
they dont get selected or what? they just all reproduce, despite being genetic trash?
how is that an advantage, it would lead to massive degeneration

they do get selected, by men and by the enviroment. but in most species only one the genders does the selection and they still are sucessfull species and evolve to adapt to the environment, nevertheless our species is at odds with that because males also do select. if the female makes a poor mating choice she might not get be able to nurture her offspring( choosing a mate that cant provide or is not willing to do it) or her offspring might not survive, or he might survive but not be able to mate or do well in the social enviorment etc. therefore the ability (or lack of it) of women to make a good mating choice for the current enviroment is a selective pressure on them in itself, as well as many other things such as maternal insticts, bodily characterics for fertility ( that the enviroment and also you select). you can also breed a woman and leave her if you find a better one and she will get selected out because shes dependent on you. also the genome is not separated between genders or it would not make sense to be sexual creatures in the first place, the advantage of it is to allow more genetical variation and consequetly a wider range of traits and complexity that allow faster possible adaptation to the enviroment, so a selective pressure(by environment or women selection) in males will be passed down to his daughters aswell and vice versa. non sexual creatures such as those that clone themselves or hermafrodites are much less complex because they dont have this, they cant allow as much possibility for change and have to rely only on occasional mutations. we would degenerate if women didnt select at all and mated with the first possibility indiscriminatly, or made a selection that is not beneficial for the current envionment.
If the enviroment becomes too permissible or stops putting pressure in some traits we will progressively lose those traits, which you may call it as degeneration, since we wont be needing it anymore, such as physical prowess for hunting, courage and skill for violence, some of things which were important that men had but not as much now. men in our current society has lost some importance in the role as a protector and as provider, since women can provide for themselves now and we live in a much safer enviroment, but women will still select for this to some degree, for now, because our insticts still reflect our previous enviroments and our enviroment changed so fast.
Its understandable/expected to see a rise misogyny due to a pure emotional reaction to the increased sexual frustration among men and also because some of the caractheristics women are still selecting for are no longer necessary in our current enviroment for us to thrive, such a physical strengh,t for example, and make us question but why are you selecting for this? why do i must sacrifice myself to provide for you if you can provide for youself? there is an increased discrepancy between our instincts and what the enviroment requires them to be, because it changed so fast. Nevertheless, to hate women because you cant get a partner is to hate nature, the evolution process, and our species as a whole, and to not recognize this is childish and ignorant.

 

[NorthernWind]

women have more value than men due to the simple fact that men give them more value because they want to please them as to be able to mate and because men themselves know they are more dispensible, why? because its a strategy that has worked throught our evolution. by assuming the role as proctectors and providors men had to be more corageous, more willing to take risks, have more physical prowess, be generous and willing to share resources with women and with the community, to be respected, be ambicious and rank up in social hierachy and further secure conditions to be able to provide in the future, as well as be healthy, have a robust immune system etc that she could expect to pass to her offspring. all things we consider masculine traits, or chadness as you guys like to say, traits that attract women, and they are and should be skilled in identifying this trates, instinctively. if women didnt mate wisely and chose man uncapable of providing, she would have an unsucessefull pregnancy or offspring, she wouldnt be able to provide for herself with a baby on her belly and her less powerfull body that got specialized for giving birth. birth was a big investment and big risk for a woman, so naturally she has evolved to want safety, provision and a trusting partner that will take care of her. and as you said well, men has co evolved to give this things to her and to have the abilities to do so, directly or indirectly the things men search in his life are things that ultimately will lead them to get laid, even waging wars with other tribes to steal their women. doesnt mean such men willing, simps are overlly nice in a fake and pathethic way, with little sense of pride or self respect because they are desperate, and women will only go for such types as a last resort, women dont want weak men, understandably.
Men will fuck anything that looks fertile as short term mating strategy, since choosing a bad mate is not very costly, they dont have to carry the baby and they can impregnate another woman on the very same day. as a long term mating strategy men can be more picky too, but never as much as women. therefore even if women compete in mating too, by trying to look as fertile as they can for example or by bitching about other competitor women as to decrease their percieved value, they have much bigger offer of mates since men are much easier to get so they have both more need and more priviledge to be more demanding in their choices.

Why it's understandable that 'women don't want weak men' when the main premise of our culture is that entitlement is bad?
Why if no one is entitled to sex, women feel entitled to strong men?

 

[NorthernWind]

Nevertheless, to hate women because you cant get a partner is to hate nature, the evolution process, and our species as a whole, and to not recognize this is childish and ignorant.

Some users here ( myself including ) actively hate nature.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Incredible!!!!

All femoids should be exterminated.

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

Why it's understandable that 'women don't want weak men' when the main premise of our culture is that entitlement is bad?
Why if no one is entitled to sex, women feel entitled to strong men?

women dont want weak men in the same way you dont want dogfaced old women with hirsutism, we want what we want, ilogical to blame anyone for that, and if we can get it we will, if we cant well...our problem. Entitlement mentality entails a elated sense of deservingness which is at odds with what other people think you deserve. A woman can think all she wants that shes is deserving to strong man, its a prediction she is making but its only true if such a man agrees, she will only get it if she succeds to atract such a man and the man decides to give it to her, and in the scenario that she succeds then we can say that she was rightfully entitled, that she made a good prediction of what she can get, because the man agreed that she is deserving of him. Youre entitled to want something, anything, doesnt mean others have to agree with you, they might or they might not.

 

[NorthernWind]

women dont want weak men in the same way you dont want dogfaced old women with hirsutism, we want what we want, ilogical to blame anyone for that, and if we can get it we will, if we cant well...our problem. Entitlement mentality entails a elated sense of deservingness which is at odds with what other people think you deserve. A woman can think all she wants that shes is deserving to strong man, its a prediction she is making but its only true if such a man agrees, she will only get it if she succeds to atract such a man and the man decides to give it to her, and in the scenario that she succeds then we can say that she was rightfully entitled, that she made a good prediction of what she can get, because the man agreed that she is deserving of him. Youre entitled to want something, anything, doesnt mean others have to agree with you, they might or they might not.

There is a difference.
If a woman openly says that she doesn't want a mess or a jobless good-for-nothing manchild, still living with his parents at 35 y.o., people think that she's reasonable and justified to seek a real man.

If a man openly says that he doesn't want a fatty or an ugly woman, people would think that he is a shallow asshole and some even shame him for 'not being a man' because only women are allowed to be picky.

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

There is a difference.
If a woman openly says that she doesn't want a mess or a jobless good-for-nothing manchild, still living with his parents at 35 y.o., people think that she's reasonable and justified to seek a real man.

If a man openly says that he doesn't want a fatty or an ugly woman, people would think that he is a shallow asshole and some even shame him for 'not being a man' because only women are allowed to be picky.

I never met anyone that shames men for being picky. anyway,if say you directly and on purpose to an ugly woman that shes ugly youre just trying to hurt her because there is nothing that she can gain from that because there is nothing she can change, is analogous to calling a man a midget. if you critize someone of their conduct is different, doesnt mean is apopriate depending on the context but is not in any way comparable to making an observation on physical caracteristics, especially ones that cannot be changed. and not most people would think she is being reasonable for saying that specific directly to someone, but shes being reasonable for not wanting that, and youre also being reasonable for not wanting a fat ugly woman, wishing things in a partner is always reasonable, its up to each individual to decide what they want in a partner.

 

[NorthernWind]

I never met anyone that shames men for being picky. anyway,if say you directly and on purpose to an ugly woman that shes ugly youre just trying to hurt her because there is nothing that she can gain from that because there is nothing she can change, is analogous to calling a man a midget.

Not calling someone ugly or not mocking his/her looks is a basic politeness and being tactful.
Before I started to use Internet, I used to read newspapers or magazines and for some strange reason it was acceptable for a women to call men ugly or losers.
I was a teen and thought that it's cruel but now I'm more bitter and hardened so I don't care.
It was an early introduction to blackpill actually showing that females care about looks or judge men so harsh that they call someone a 'loser'...

 

[AntisocialNihilist]

> JoinedApr 19, 2023
> Masculinity is an actual social construct

Just shut the fuck up, retarded faggot who argues over join dates just kys, also you're LITERALLY IN THE SAME YEAR.

 

[AntisocialNihilist]

"You're not a real woman!"
Said no one ever.
Why?
Why does that only work on men?
The answer is two-fold

1. women have inherent value, you can't loose your woman card because being a woman is synonymous with having female flesh.
2. masculinity as its propagated by women and society largely harms men and benefits women.

According to this study, you actually need to work constantly to maintain your status as a "real man" - Sisyphus anyone?

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-a0029826.pdf

I will now explain point 1 and 2 a bit more in detail:

1. Why do Women have more value
a) TL;DR Water Wet, the only thing that makes a woman a woman is her looks
I don't believe in evo-psych sorry. I think it's even completely unnecessary to recount elaborate fables for certain human behaviors, when the same behaviors could simply be explained by narcissism.

Besides, the entire discussion usually slips into female-worship when you bring up evolution, because the implication that for instance "men are disposable" implies that all women are somehow 10/10 genetically perfect and healthy creatures, since the majority of them reproduce. So all women have perfect genes, and if we just let women reproduce with chads, everyone would be 10/10?

This is retarded and foid worship. Especially given that the fetus spends 9 months inside the foid growing, yet somehow only the males sperm is responsible for ALL the traits the child has? Again, foid worship because it leaves the females responsibility out of the equation. If anything the health and nutritional profile of the mother is WAY more important than DNA. Look into nutrition please, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A. Price is a good starting point. Your looks are mostly shaped by factors such as maternal nutrition, breastfeeding, correct chewing, swallowing and breathing patterns etc.

Good article on the suppression of medical data showing that animal fats are good for you:

The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie

The Long Read: In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

www.theguardian.com

Neoteny in women is also often not the result of sexual dimorphism but simply nutritional degeneration. It is just not as apparent in women because women, unlike men, profit from looking neotenous. If the genders were healthy and fully developed after being raised on the correct diet, sexual dimorphism would be reduced greatly.

"Sorry sweaty its just natural selection" - so why does the majority of women reproduce? This is a simple logical fallacy, which, if brought to its conclusion, implies women somehow are more healthy, genetically superior and smarter than men. This is foid-worship, without a doubt.

So, I propose an alternative theory for why women are more valued, with a different starting presupposition:

1. Men respond to neoteny in any form, puppies, children, women with parental instinct (origin of instinct is debatable)
2. Women do everything in their power to exaggerate sexual dimorphism and increase neoteny (Esther Vilar wrote about this in her 1971 book "The Manipulated Man")
3. The mechanism (for lack of a better word) that makes men forgive women, is the same mechanism that makes men forgive a dog for shitting on the rug.

Dogs, btw, are nutritionally deficient mutants bred to look retarded and neotenous. It's literally like having a down syndrome child in your home, but on purpose. Women anyone?
3 million dog bites that need medical attention in US every year, yet nobody cares. Why? Neoteny, the dog is never blamed. If it was a hyena people would put it through meat grinder and applaud the person doing it.
It's the same mechanism that shields women from blame. It's just their looks. Stupid example to make a point: If a woman looked like a man, but acted the same, would her behavior be remotely acceptable? No, of course not -> ALWAYS genderswap in your head. Use faceapp on bitches to see what they would look like as men, then you can tell their actual nature. Some bitches look like thugs when genderswapped and their behavior always matches the looks.

So, the only thing that keeps women from getting their register pounded six days from tomorrow is their looks. Obviously.

b) INSANE female in-group bias (4.5 times the one men have, men have ZERO - study below)

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494

Now, this one is less discussed and may come as a surprise to some here.
1. women are the only group in society that has innate in-group preference for their own gender
2. this means women naturally form a "herd" or "hive"
3. women trust women; men trust women; men fight men; ->society

That means, society is only women. Men fighting to get female validation is an attempt to get BACK into society.
ALL men are viewed as and out-group by both men and women. Every man is a stranger effectively.
The only way to get away from this, is by being accepted by women. If one woman accepts you, all do and thus, you are part of society (which is only women).
That's why people always act suspicious around single males, but not around men with women.

What that means for us is that the female in-group dictates which traits men need to display to get access to their in-group. Aka, women define what masculinity is.
As always, everything women say is projection.
Femininity is a social construct, designed to encourage certain behaviors in men by negation. These behaviors are then called "Masculinity."

Example:
Women act weak and helpless, there for its Masculine to be strong and help women (Female hypoagency).
This is also a classic manipulation tactic. The easiest way to manipulate people is by giving them what they want, because people don't question compliments (Just world fallacy + Fundamental Attribution Error).

What they do is basically pretend to be weak so the man feels empowered in his pseudo "masculinity" (which is only contingent on women liking him). That makes the man feel powerful and in charge, while she is actually in power and retains plausible deniability.

In reality, women are extremely powerful. This can not be stated enough. Women are infinitely more powerful than men. Their in-group preference alone makes them unstoppable. Imagine having 50% of society unconditionally supporting you + simps worshipping you and ready to kill another man at your order.

The reason why women project that there has to be a patriarchy is because it matches their IRL experience of life.
They constantly cheat the system by getting support from other women. They are like the mafia, but its half of society + simps as their cronies.

Additionally, women control 80% of customer spending or more, depending on sector:

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

View attachment 744382

This statistic alone should send shivers down your spine.
The implication here is that 40% of the money women spend comes from men, AT THE VERY LEAST.
Furthermore, women hold most of the wealth.

More studies here:

http://www.mrarchivist.com/data/

An additional study where they made men and women play an online RPG together. After some time, the women held the majority of the resources and power, while engaging in less risk taking behavior (fighting, dying, competing) -> men gave them all their resources. Even in a video game.



This means exactly what it sounds like.
4.5 in-group preference = women form a large, coherent hive-body with no individualism. This also makes them lesbian.
Men fuck each other. Up.
TL;DR of study:
1. women have much higher in-group bias for other women, communicate much more, have stronger networks to support each other - sisterhood mafia, women are jews
2. men kill each other but paradoxically trust women instantly and surrender all their resources to them
3. as result women are extremely empowered with both males serving them and providing them with resources while women take zero risks of their own
4. society. study link below.

How women organize social networks different from men - Scientific Reports

Superpositions of social networks, such as communication, friendship, or trade networks, are called multiplex networks, forming the structural backbone of human societies. Novel datasets now allow quantification and exploration of multiplex networks. Here we study gender-specific differences of...

www.nature.com

That means, women are in total control of society on any level. They dictate beliefs, thoughts, how men view themselves, who gets big on social media, they dictate the entire market through their spending etc...
I want you to pay attention on livestreams, where the money comes from when they do superchats and shit.

I think even Karl Marx wrote that you can't start a revolution with men. You kickstart the foids first and the men follow.

How Marx and Engels fought for women’s liberation

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were champions of women’s liberation, both in theory and in practice, in public and in private.1 Important work has already been published exploring both Marx’s and Engels’s writings about women and the family, and developing… Continue Reading →

isj.org.uk

It all comes down to something we all are familar with: Briffaults law
Briffault's law states:


Now, in the light of all of the above, consider the insane power women hold in society. It's truly staggering how powerless men are.
Please think about this:
How pathetic, I can't stress this enough, HOW PATHETIC is it to tell young men to "just go to the gym" in the light of this?
How absolutely comical is it to make young men participate in a race this rigged?

The biggest pill is the genderpill: IF YOU ARE BORN MALE ITS OVER
That's why "masculinity" doesn't exist outside the context of what women want, that's why you can loose it. It's a passport to society that can be revoked by women at any time. It's a conditional surrender of your individuality and dignity in favor of women.

LASTLY: IF YOU CHASE MONEY, YOU ALSO SERVE WOMEN
If it isn't obvious at this point:

1. women control all the wealth, directly and indirectly
2. if you want to be successful in any way financially, you have to cater to women
3. by chasing money you indirectly support women by providing them services and further exploiting men
4. to chase money means to compete with other men for female validation, women don't compete like that, they support each other (4.5 in-group pref)
5. women act just like jewsh with their retarded-tier high in-group preference and nepotism. If you go along with this, you're a jew. A female with a male body would just be jew tbh.

Chasing money is a feminine trait. It's female centered, it serves females, it gets you female attention -> its feminine

There's a reason why it says in the Gospels, you can either serve God or Mammon, not both. A man can only have one master.


- Matthew 6:24, KJV

Tags:
@lifefuel @MortonZnk @M.Yass @Med Amine @Tarquinius

I was with the post until you started hating on people who try to seek out money, of course money isn't the entire world but wanting it doesn't make you weak or a loser. Also, I just laughed at the inclusion of religion, I thought you were smart for just a moment, well I suppose it's not all garbage.

 

[GeckoBus]

I was with the post until you started hating on people who try to seek out money, of course money isn't the entire world but wanting it doesn't make you weak or a loser. Also, I just laughed at the inclusion of religion, I thought you were smart for just a moment, well I suppose it's not all garbage.

and you're a nihilist who makes moral value judgements. giga iq

 

[AntisocialNihilist]

and you're a nihilist who makes moral value judgements. giga iq

Not true, if we put aside the fact none of it matters, I despise fuckers who think "grinding" for eternity is a valuable way to spend existence, thinking they're literally Andrew Tate and will also get a buggati if they just try enough, money chasers are superficial idiots.

I did not make any judgements I just pointed out some thinks I specifically didn't like, the rest is fine.

 

[AntisocialNihilist]

and you're a nihilist who makes moral value judgements. giga iq

I was indeed a bit harsh, I realized that you could've just been making an allaogory, that being said, It is indeed a good read.

 

[GeckoBus]

I was indeed a bit harsh, I realized that you could've just been making an allaogory, that being said, It is indeed a good read.

it's fine bro
I'm super neurotic because I have autism and health issues.
So I can come off as retarded often.

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

Not calling someone ugly or not mocking his/her looks is a basic politeness and being tactful.
Before I started to use Internet, I used to read newspapers or magazines and for some strange reason it was acceptable for a women to call men ugly or losers.
I was a teen and thought that it's cruel but now I'm more bitter and hardened so I don't care.
It was an early introduction to blackpill actually showing that females care about looks or judge men so harsh that they call someone a 'loser'...

Sure women can be cruel, and media is filled with all kinds of hypocrisy and so do peoples minds, everyone judges everyone, some more tactfull then others. My point is that we see such cruelty in men and women alike, and generalazing that all women must be like that and blame people that you dont know for others doings is just a projection of your sexual frustration, an attempt to feel superior to them to compensate for you sense of inferiority because you cant attract them. When i was in middle school i used to make fun of fat girls, throw my bag pack at them and call them hippotamus and such, if they started thinking every boy behaved or will always behave like that they would be wrong. Regardless, if someone tries to offend you and you feel offended by it its your fault for feeling like so, youre the one attributing value to that insult and letting it affect how you feel about yourself. You can analyse such insult to evaluate if there is any constructive criticism behind it that you can use to your advantage or if not you can be condescending towards it. And women many times are just testing men, they want to see how emotionally resilient you are or how much you doubt yourself, i do it too and im not a woman. Bullying is a two edged sword, it can teach you that you dont have to atribute value to everything that is said about you and challenge you to become stronger or it can make you miserable or even physically hurt if you cannot stand up to that challenge.

 

[RegularManlet]

Sure women can be cruel, and media is filled with all kinds of hypocrisy and so do peoples minds, everyone judges everyone, some more tactfull then others. My point is that we see such cruelty in men and women alike, and generalazing that all women must be like that and blame people that you dont know for others doings is just a projection of your sexual frustration, an attempt to feel superior to them to compensate for you sense of inferiority because you cant attract them. When i was in middle school i used to make fun of fat girls, throw my bag pack at them and call them hippotamus and such, if they started thinking every boy behaved or will always behave like that they would be wrong. Regardless, if someone tries to offend you and you feel offended by it its your fault for feeling like so, youre the one attributing value to that insult and letting it affect how you feel about yourself. You can analyse such insult to evaluate if there is any constructive criticism behind it that you can use to your advantage or if not you can be condescending towards it. And women many times are just testing men, they want to see how emotionally resilient you are or how much you doubt yourself, i do it too and im not a woman. Bullying is a two edged sword, it can teach you that you dont have to atribute value to everything that is said about you and challenge you to become stronger or it can make you miserable or even physically hurt if you cannot stand up to that challenge.

I think its just more acceptable for women to be cruel than it is for a man, in school if a woman would make fun of me, guys would laugh along with her, but if I called her a rude name, you would just be seen as an incel, and no one would laugh with you.

Btw maybe you should try spacing out your posts a bit, it's a bit of a drain to read with no spacing breaks.

 

[chilloutlifeisajoke]

I think its just more acceptable for women to be cruel than it is for a man, in school if a woman would make fun of me, guys would laugh along with her, but if I called her a rude name, you would just be seen as an incel, and no one would laugh with you.

Btw maybe you should try spacing out your posts a bit, it's a bit of a drain to read with no spacing breaks.

Yes is true there is a greater tendency to tolerate cruelty from women or even to go allong with it. I think this comes, at least in part, from different expectations that we have between men and women. Men are expected to be more resilient, emotionally and physically, so an offence to a man is supposed to be less impactfull than for a woman, or a challenge they should be ready to overcome.

Other aspect i think for us to be less confrontational towards women because is we want to please them and have them like us so we get the pussy, even if we may do this in a condescending or dissimulated manner.

Generally, we try to protect women more than men, it is true, and if they are beautifull even greater is this tendency, due to the second point that i suggested. Unless you are in a incel forum xD, here the more beautiful the more you hate her because her existance alone lowers your self steem and makes you feel miserable, even if you know nothing else about her.

 

[RegularManlet]

here the more beautiful the more you hate her because her existance alone lowers your self steem and makes you feel miserable, even if you know nothing else about her.

Personally I don't really hate foids or get depressed when I see a hot foid, im pretty neutral towards it.

Your reply does make me think though, it used to be that foids had to be careful with their words, they could not be direct as if they were to piss a man off, they can't beat a man in a 1v1.

However now we can't go around beating and killing foids (rightfully so) however their true nature is broooootal, and they still have some of that evolutionary instinct in them to know how to socially wound someone instead of physically wound someone that can make their insults really hurtful.

And this is why they are so brutal, now for the first time in history they can just say whats on their minds, which is that most of us are not attractive

 

[SmhChan]

Yes is true there is a greater tendency to tolerate cruelty from women or even to go allong with it. I think this comes, at least in part, from different expectations that we have between men and women. Men are expected to be more resilient, emotionally and physically, so an offence to a man is supposed to be less impactfull than for a woman, or a challenge they should be ready to overcome.

Other aspect i think for us to be less confrontational towards women because is we want to please them and have them like us so we get the pussy, even if we may do this in a condescending or dissimulated manner.

Generally, we try to protect women more than men, it is true, and if they are beautifull even greater is this tendency, due to the second point that i suggested. Unless you are in a incel forum xD, here the more beautiful the more you hate her because her existance alone lowers your self steem and makes you feel miserable, even if you know nothing else about her.

I wish users like you would fuck off to forums like looksmaxxing for some shit, spewing basic bitch retarded garbage like a typical foid-worshipper. You do realise if men were collectively more confrontational, there would far fewer incels. 'Condescending', 'dissimulated'? What the fuck are your arbitrary standards? People are social creatures and act nice to blend.Foids are far more guilty of those behaviours when they reject men and try to entrap those same men to betabux. Fucking gaslighting terms. It's been the whole male-female dynamic since the dawn of time, even in the most 'misogynistic' society. Men have to be extra nice due to the lopsided dating standards and constant outrage and accusations of 'misogyny' over the most benign 'kitchen' joke.

I wonder why you'd frame men being nice as 'condescending', implying a bad trait when foids are outright responsible for far more malicious shits (height-shame, dick-shame, virgin-shame, broke-shame, mama-boy-shame, leeching betabuxxers etc.) inflicted upon men that are socially acceptable. You scrambled and scrambled but you couldn't find anything beyond a fraction of the male population committing crimes against foids. So you had to resort to framing the 'mating dance' as a bad trait on the part of men

Do you think my behaviour towards my dating prospect would be the same as my behaviour towards my buddies? Do you think you could keep your job if you acted like a 'confrontational' asshole in front of other employees? Maybe you are a retarded fakecel who needs to just step into the real world. You absolute autistic muppet.

Op could write another fucking essay, still the nuances that make the actual differences wouldn't get through your thick skull. Fucking dumbass.

 

[Antorian]

High IQ thread

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

That means, society is only women. Men fighting to get female validation is an attempt to get BACK into society.
ALL men are viewed as and out-group by both men and women. Every man is a stranger effectively.
The only way to get away from this, is by being accepted by women. If one woman accepts you, all do and thus, you are part of society (which is only women).
That's why people always act suspicious around single males, but not around men with women.

What that means for us is that the female in-group dictates which traits men need to display to get access to their in-group. Aka, women define what masculinity is.
As always, everything women say is projection.
Femininity is a social construct, designed to encourage certain behaviors in men by negation. These behaviors are then called "Masculinity."

Example:
Women act weak and helpless, there for its Masculine to be strong and help women (Female hypoagency).
This is also a classic manipulation tactic. The easiest way to manipulate people is by giving them what they want, because people don't question compliments (Just world fallacy + Fundamental Attribution Error).

What they do is basically pretend to be weak so the man feels empowered in his pseudo "masculinity" (which is only contingent on women liking him). That makes the man feel powerful and in charge, while she is actually in power and retains plausible deniability.

In reality, women are extremely powerful. This can not be stated enough. Women are infinitely more powerful than men. Their in-group preference alone makes them unstoppable. Imagine having 50% of society unconditionally supporting you + simps worshipping you and ready to kill another man at your order.

The reason why women project that there has to be a patriarchy is because it matches their IRL experience of life.
They constantly cheat the system by getting support from other women. They are like the mafia, but its half of society + simps as their cronies.

I especially liked this part. All expectations society has for men are lumped together and defined as masculinity. Then women gaslight men into doing what they expect with the excuse of "be a man!". Men who don't follow remain single and are basically outcasts living horrible lives.

Meanwhile women don't have to deal with the pressures of femininity. Today more than ever.

 

[GeckoBus]

I especially liked this part. All expectations society has for men are lumped together and defined as masculinity. Then women gaslight men into doing what they expect with the excuse of "be a man!". Men who don't follow remain single and are basically outcasts living horrible lives.

Meanwhile women don't have to deal with the pressures of femininity. Today more than ever.

exactly. This goes very deep. For instance when you look at family dynamics, the dad will often give preferential treatment to the wife, to the detriment of the children and himself. It's like kids are hostages of the mom and he only pays a ransom to keep access to them. He has Stockholm syndrome for her. People in our society care way more about women than about kids. I've never heard anyone campaign for children's rights.

Either people campaign for women, or they pretend to campaign for men, while pushing ideas that benefit women (redpill, bluepill).

Society doesn't care about kids. Or child labor would never have been allowed in the past. The reason why it stopped was not a sudden improvement in peoples morality jfl. They didn't suddenly go "wait a minute... having a 5 year old work in a coal mine is bad for him! holy smokes! gee whiz! golly gee!"

What happened was that the economy improved and that kind of labor simply disappeared over time. Just like women could suddenly stay home because one man could earn enough to feed a family, so kids could stay home too now.

This infact overlaps with another thing I've pointed out before: women were never barred from the workforce. In the 1800s 70% of women were employed and 1000s had businesses. The reason why that number dropped to like 6% later was because early feminists, aka women (all women are feminist, my thread should have made that obvious), wanted to leave the workforce.

So maybe there's a connection to how kids are viewed and women larping as stay at home moms. Women needed kids in the home to sell the larp to men.

For example in the 40s people complained about how "motherhood" had become a thing of worship. There is a book called generation of vipers from the time that talks about this.

The author says in the past motherhood was performance based. If you were a shit mom nobody would give you special treatment. He then laments that in his time, the 30s and 40s, it seems that just giving birth alone is enough to give you political immunity.

He talks about how they made soldiers form the word mom on a football field and stuff.

Anyway enough of this. Here are some links to what I talked about.

EARLY FEMINISTS WANTED WOMEN TO WORK LESS - NOT MORE -> REPLY OR U GAY

"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10...

incels.is

https://incels.is/threads/oh-no.542111/

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

exactly. This goes very deep. For instance when you look at family dynamics, the dad will often give preferential treatment to the wife, to the detriment of the children and himself. It's like kids are hostages of the mom and he only pays a ransom to keep access to them. He has Stockholm syndrome for her. People in our society care way more about women than about kids. I've never heard anyone campaign for children's rights.

Very true. I've read once that sometimes the mother will get jealous of the daughter when she's close with her father. This is beyond fucked up.

What happened was that the economy improved and that kind of labor simply disappeared over time. Just like women could suddenly stay home because one man could earn enough to feed a family, so kids could stay home too now.

This infact overlaps with another thing I've pointed out before: women were never barred from the workforce. In the 1800s 70% of women were employed and 1000s had businesses. The reason why that number dropped to like 6% later was because early feminists, aka women (all women are feminist, my thread should have made that obvious), wanted to leave the workforce.

So maybe there's a connection to how kids are viewed and women larping as stay at home moms. Women needed kids in the home to sell the larp to men.

This makes sense, but it's to find sources because it doesn't fit today's agenda. Life was hard during the age of 1st wave feminism so a person staying at home just being a nester seems unlikely.

I guess later they realized they'd become tied and dependent on the man, if they wanted to stay at home doing fuck all, and moved feminism in the other direction.

And today feminism is going on the direction of providing everything for women through taxes, so they can focus only on the cock-carousel.

 

[droppeddogs]

Indeed, this is one of the reasons why almost all Maoists and communist guerilla insurgent groups today are dominated by females. The society it self is feminine by nature thus revolution starts with females. This is primarily the reason why I believe incel Marxist Rodgerist revolution will never happen as we don't have Foids to reward the male insurgents with sex.

Boko haram are incels

View: https://youtu.be/zGedwEYNh70?si=91tMq5joHVlT9umS

 

[droppeddogs]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zYL-XylC74&t=2s

what movie is this? the scene is so realistic. I must watch it. What a lucky guy to have a realistic blackpilled friend like him.

Whatever 1999
This is the website I used
https://ww1.m4uhd.com/watch-oeyoa-whatever-1999-movie-online-free-m4ufree.html

 

[mericks]

"You're not a real woman!"
Said no one ever.

dude where have you been for the past decade? People say this all the time, just not to other women.

 

[Raider919]

this is prime reading material

 

[veqdera]

High quality and high IQ thread. I agree with every single point.

Very nice.

I also noticed in school how fat and ugly girls and popular girls sat at the same table and were friends. I was baffled. This would be unthinkable with males. Chads tried to get as far away as possible from anyone who is seen as weird or ugly.

I agree with some of it, but their some i dont agree with like: the aister hood which was mentioned, like everyone knows at least the blackpill ones that the sisterhood goes out the window when its chad, women would through each other under the bus, break friendship bridges for chad.
Another point i disagree with is jews and money. Not all women are jews, women who are jews are jews, just as how their are jewish men, saying that their jews deflects and even tries to deny that jews control the world. What do all the secret societies, jesuits, and world leaders, etc have in common, their jews; im not talking about those cattle gentiles, im talking about the veey top of the hierarchy. One could also say that jews use women for their agenda/chaos popular dating apps such as tinder were created by jews (promotes hypergamy, and the time creating sexless and lonely men). Karl marx who was jewish and who you happened to mention said; a revolution needs women to start. Tfue to some extend; but any events/program/trend needs male support for it to work (i dont exactly know how to explain this).

The jews if they want to promote their agenda their going for male support through the women an exmaple like this is in the bible. Eve and adam knew not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When eve ate it nothing happened, but when even gave to adam and adam ate it everything changed (read genesis chapter 3. So who was really in power/authority the man. What im trying to say is events/revolutions, etc need male support to make a change, if its just women or majority of women nothing will happened.

Women go into male spaces, which further proves that male support is needed. Btw r/FTM is a thing

Women are the most in debt, degrees that deal with gender studies. Etc. Going into jobs that are majority male. Also proves that male support/validation is needed.

You mentioned the video game, which i thibk is an example of a alpha fucks, beta bux, and oofy doofy relationship. Chad is not giving his resources. His taking it all, he may even plunder other players.

I Could go on, but i'll stop there i think this thread is redpill rather than blackpill.

And btw chasing money does get you women, not geniune honest ones, you get the gold diggers, chad doesn't need money, his relationships and geniune and true. And the men with money are not worshiping women, they could just rotate,and they also oppress women (labour, etc).

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

 

[Lonelyus]

Where is our place in this universe, Where do we truly belong if we are outcasted.