Obviously from a biological standpoint they are better suited for giving birth to children since they can breastfeed and have more fat which means they are better suited to surviving for long periods of time unlike males.
But as actual nurturers and caretakers, are they actually any better than men? Whenever a red pilled man tries to protect himself from accusations of misogyny they like to go for the "oh, but women are better nurtures/caretakers than men and that is their special talent" argument. But is this even true? Is there anything actually suggesting this is even the case? Consider the fact that:
-Women are more likely to harm their children/engage in domestic abuse than men (I have seen women emotionally abuse their kids way more often than men)
-Are more likely to kill their children than men
-Are more likely to prioritize their own well being and interests over that of their children than men, as is reflected in how 70+% of all divorces are started by women
-Are ok with using their children as weapons against former husbands without any regard for the emotional well being of the child
-Will often spend money given to them by their former husbands/biological father of their children on themselves rather than their kids
So how on earth can it be true that women are better caretakers than men?
And I would also like to add that the idea humans are naturally more empathetic on the bases that it takes longer to raise children into adulthood thus forcing the mother to care more about a fewer number of children rather than a larger number that can reach adulthood quickly is a fucking joke. It's pure cope. For if this was true then why is it that:
-Before birth control women would have like a dozen children, half of whom would just fucking die before making it into adulthood?
-Before modern comfort humans weren't even that long lived anyway, often being too old to be useful by age 50.
-Before modern society decided adulthood started at age 18 humans were considered adults years before that
-For much of history women would just flat out murder the babies they did not want by leaving them out to die
When you consider the above facts the idea that human evolution follows a strategy of "quality over quantity" and that this is proof women love their children becomes utterly laughable. Women could have literally dozens of offspring if they cared to do so. I bet most women would be ok with allowing chads to just fucking eat their babies if it insured a relationship with them and a superior chad offspring (which mind you, most females in other species actually are).
The idea that women are naturally kind caretakers is a social construct, just like the idea of traditional marriage and so called love is a social construct. It's a bullshit myth that was used to help reinforce the idea of traditional marriage.
But what about nice old grandma? She is kind isn't she? Not really. Women care massively about what others think about them, and in the old days traditional values were king. Your grandma is (or was, assuming she's dead) a relic from an older era. I assure you 100% that the young women of today will not be like your nice grandma once they are old. Even your mother probably doesn't really care about you. If women are able to successfully trick their husbands into thinking they love them for years or even decades via fake smiles then what makes you think the same doesn't apply to the relationship between mothers and their children? How do you know that all your mother's "love" towards you isn't just an act that they put on because society expects it, and that they would not simply throw you to the dogs if it suited their purposes to do so?
Just face it. Women are evil people with no redeeming qualities. In ancient times women had no way to defend themselves via force and thus they were forced to evolve into evil sociopaths that can protect themselves via lying and manipulation. They are worthless.
But as actual nurturers and caretakers, are they actually any better than men? Whenever a red pilled man tries to protect himself from accusations of misogyny they like to go for the "oh, but women are better nurtures/caretakers than men and that is their special talent" argument. But is this even true? Is there anything actually suggesting this is even the case? Consider the fact that:
-Women are more likely to harm their children/engage in domestic abuse than men (I have seen women emotionally abuse their kids way more often than men)
-Are more likely to kill their children than men
-Are more likely to prioritize their own well being and interests over that of their children than men, as is reflected in how 70+% of all divorces are started by women
-Are ok with using their children as weapons against former husbands without any regard for the emotional well being of the child
-Will often spend money given to them by their former husbands/biological father of their children on themselves rather than their kids
So how on earth can it be true that women are better caretakers than men?
And I would also like to add that the idea humans are naturally more empathetic on the bases that it takes longer to raise children into adulthood thus forcing the mother to care more about a fewer number of children rather than a larger number that can reach adulthood quickly is a fucking joke. It's pure cope. For if this was true then why is it that:
-Before birth control women would have like a dozen children, half of whom would just fucking die before making it into adulthood?
-Before modern comfort humans weren't even that long lived anyway, often being too old to be useful by age 50.
-Before modern society decided adulthood started at age 18 humans were considered adults years before that
-For much of history women would just flat out murder the babies they did not want by leaving them out to die
When you consider the above facts the idea that human evolution follows a strategy of "quality over quantity" and that this is proof women love their children becomes utterly laughable. Women could have literally dozens of offspring if they cared to do so. I bet most women would be ok with allowing chads to just fucking eat their babies if it insured a relationship with them and a superior chad offspring (which mind you, most females in other species actually are).
The idea that women are naturally kind caretakers is a social construct, just like the idea of traditional marriage and so called love is a social construct. It's a bullshit myth that was used to help reinforce the idea of traditional marriage.
But what about nice old grandma? She is kind isn't she? Not really. Women care massively about what others think about them, and in the old days traditional values were king. Your grandma is (or was, assuming she's dead) a relic from an older era. I assure you 100% that the young women of today will not be like your nice grandma once they are old. Even your mother probably doesn't really care about you. If women are able to successfully trick their husbands into thinking they love them for years or even decades via fake smiles then what makes you think the same doesn't apply to the relationship between mothers and their children? How do you know that all your mother's "love" towards you isn't just an act that they put on because society expects it, and that they would not simply throw you to the dogs if it suited their purposes to do so?
Just face it. Women are evil people with no redeeming qualities. In ancient times women had no way to defend themselves via force and thus they were forced to evolve into evil sociopaths that can protect themselves via lying and manipulation. They are worthless.
