The other day I made the mistake to browse /r9k/ again like back in the days.
There was a thread by a shitcunt who complained about the lack of "real men" these days and wrote how she was ambiguous about one of her suitors because apparently, the guy confessed that he used to enjoy femdom porn in the past.
And then the """robots""" tried to convince her that her preference for dominant men is just "culturally conditioned" anyway and that all people have a "fluid" sexuality, that all men are actually a bit bisexual and a bit submissive and so on.
And it was really pathetic to see. There was this woman dropping blackpills by accident, and the """robots""" reacted like the most blue-pilled ultra-cucks and rambled on about fluid sexuality and femdom like that guy who held the "I need feminism because I enjoy my girlfriend's strap-on"-sign.
An important blackpill, however, is that women are generally less diverse than men. Men are very extreme and all over the place. Men are both more intelligent and more stupid than women, because women are mostly in the mid-range of all IQ tests, while the extraordinarily intelligent as well as the extraordinarily stupid people are mostly men. And so it is for pretty much an field of interest:the supper funny people are men, the super serious depressed poet-preacher types are also men. Great artists are all men, people who think that books are just for faggots are also mostly men. There is no female Jack the Ripper for the same reason there is no female Mozart. Women are just more normal, mediocre however you want to put it. They are carbon copies of each other.
And women also have one sexual preference only: submissive masochism. The lookist crowd who thinks that an all-American Disney-life with apple pie baking princesses awaits all those who have the proper cantal tilt are far from having realized the dark truth about women. And part of this dark truth is that women are aroused by pain, fear and loss of control. (Which is also why their favorite insults are terms that evoke disgust -creepy, strange, weird- rather than fear.)
All that femdom stuff is just a byproduct of male variability. Sperm is cheap but eggs are expensive. So "mother nature" could afford to experiment with men. Monogamy is civilization and INDEED a "social construct" and a male invention. Social constructs aren't necessarily a bad thing. It just depends on whether it's a good construct or not.
But with women, this sexual variability is not given. They all want to be beaten, slapped and humiliated sexually. There is no such a thing as a "female dominant", that's just a way to get money or a kind of a sexless gay-bff-"slave".
What I see more and more are men who fall for these feminist lies and believe that there's something in it for them as well. Because of male variability, many men have zero interest in this kind of "alpha"-role. They would actually be fine with a more dominant gf or at least with someone who carries her own weight, rather than a housewife he has to provide for etc. And so these guys hope that there's something in for them, as well and they believe that we antifeminists want to destroy that for them. But what they fear we want to destroy, we know doesn't even exist.
Their manic pixie girl or however that meme is called doesn't exist. Sadly, however, many antifeminists focus too much on these men rather than on the dark truth about women. When tradcucks want to kill all men who are not "alpha" enough, they would find the approval of women who also want to kill all beta men and become part of Chad's slave harem.
All pro-male movements therefore have to consider that tradcuckery will inevitably alienate too many men. Men as a social group are just too variable, too diverse. If you only allow one kind of masculinity, you will inevitably alienate massive numbers of men. You cannot mobilize men the same way feminists can mobilize women, because men are more diverse. So you have to be accepting of this diversity, otherwise you'll never grow big enough in number.
There was a thread by a shitcunt who complained about the lack of "real men" these days and wrote how she was ambiguous about one of her suitors because apparently, the guy confessed that he used to enjoy femdom porn in the past.
And then the """robots""" tried to convince her that her preference for dominant men is just "culturally conditioned" anyway and that all people have a "fluid" sexuality, that all men are actually a bit bisexual and a bit submissive and so on.
And it was really pathetic to see. There was this woman dropping blackpills by accident, and the """robots""" reacted like the most blue-pilled ultra-cucks and rambled on about fluid sexuality and femdom like that guy who held the "I need feminism because I enjoy my girlfriend's strap-on"-sign.
An important blackpill, however, is that women are generally less diverse than men. Men are very extreme and all over the place. Men are both more intelligent and more stupid than women, because women are mostly in the mid-range of all IQ tests, while the extraordinarily intelligent as well as the extraordinarily stupid people are mostly men. And so it is for pretty much an field of interest:the supper funny people are men, the super serious depressed poet-preacher types are also men. Great artists are all men, people who think that books are just for faggots are also mostly men. There is no female Jack the Ripper for the same reason there is no female Mozart. Women are just more normal, mediocre however you want to put it. They are carbon copies of each other.
And women also have one sexual preference only: submissive masochism. The lookist crowd who thinks that an all-American Disney-life with apple pie baking princesses awaits all those who have the proper cantal tilt are far from having realized the dark truth about women. And part of this dark truth is that women are aroused by pain, fear and loss of control. (Which is also why their favorite insults are terms that evoke disgust -creepy, strange, weird- rather than fear.)
All that femdom stuff is just a byproduct of male variability. Sperm is cheap but eggs are expensive. So "mother nature" could afford to experiment with men. Monogamy is civilization and INDEED a "social construct" and a male invention. Social constructs aren't necessarily a bad thing. It just depends on whether it's a good construct or not.
But with women, this sexual variability is not given. They all want to be beaten, slapped and humiliated sexually. There is no such a thing as a "female dominant", that's just a way to get money or a kind of a sexless gay-bff-"slave".
What I see more and more are men who fall for these feminist lies and believe that there's something in it for them as well. Because of male variability, many men have zero interest in this kind of "alpha"-role. They would actually be fine with a more dominant gf or at least with someone who carries her own weight, rather than a housewife he has to provide for etc. And so these guys hope that there's something in for them, as well and they believe that we antifeminists want to destroy that for them. But what they fear we want to destroy, we know doesn't even exist.
Their manic pixie girl or however that meme is called doesn't exist. Sadly, however, many antifeminists focus too much on these men rather than on the dark truth about women. When tradcucks want to kill all men who are not "alpha" enough, they would find the approval of women who also want to kill all beta men and become part of Chad's slave harem.
All pro-male movements therefore have to consider that tradcuckery will inevitably alienate too many men. Men as a social group are just too variable, too diverse. If you only allow one kind of masculinity, you will inevitably alienate massive numbers of men. You cannot mobilize men the same way feminists can mobilize women, because men are more diverse. So you have to be accepting of this diversity, otherwise you'll never grow big enough in number.
