M
About 1.5 months ago, I posted an essay titled "Misogyny 101: An essay. "The inherent inferiority of the female". It can be found here: https://incels.is/threads/misogyny-...inferiority-of-the-female.51969/#post-1133417
I'm writing this series unedited, as I am writing a scholarly book about the inherent inferiority of the female, and plan to get it published. This post right here is by no means similar to the scholarly form that will be written for my book. It is just a way I can share this information with my fellow incels wtithout putting much effort. I just free wrote and didn't proofread. Too long have you been force-fed the ideology that men are inferior to women. And you have sunk into a state of misogyny over the inequalities and the way you have been treated. But, as I said in my last essay. It is easier to hate someone who is inherently inferior to you.
Now, that we have discussed how females are fundamentally inferior to men and lack the capacity to compete with men, In this essay, I want to focus on physical confrontations and violent fights--especially during the past (prehistorical times).
What I mean by inherently inferior is intrinsically lesser. I DON'T mean "inferior" or "superior". I mean inferior by nature! That females are characterized by inferiority inherently. It is the essence of female. Inherent inferiority is a property that is intrinsic and inherent of females. Why do I say this? Because a female could take anabolic steroids and lift more than someone. That means they are superior to you in weight lifted, but they are still inherently inferior in inherent potential to someone with better genes but doesn't work out. To simplify this:
Person A: Takes Anabolic steroids. Terrible genes for building muscle. Trains everyday and lifts more than person B
Person B: Takes Anabolic Steroids. Excellent genes for building muscle. Does not train at the gym and lifts less weight.
What are true about these 2 persons?
(1) Obviously, Person A is superior to person B in strength! However,
(2) Person B is superior to person A in the inherent capacity to build muscle because they have excellent genes. Therefore person B is inherently superior to person A! This is an oversimplified analogy, but it works really well to explain the concept of inherent inferiority. Person B has better genes than person A. So person A is inferior by her own nature. Intrinsically, she has the property of not building as much muscle, so she is inherently inferior to person B.
[SIDE NOTE: Let's take a quiz. Which is an extrinsic property and which is the intrinsic: Weight or Mass? Mass is an intrinsic property because it does not change regardless of gravity; it is an internal property of an object. Weight is an extrinsic property because it depends on the gravity the object is in. With respect to fighting: Genetic potential for strength and aggression is an intrinsic property of a person. Level of martial arts training is an extrinsic property because it depends on amount of time training. We focus this essay only on intrinsic inherent inferiority of females, not on trained females vs. trained males (that comparison would be absurd and would not tell us anything about who is inherently inferior--one of them may have just trained harder or was feeling better/more aggressive this particular day).]
Now, let's apply this analogy to physical fights. I will mainly address the objection that states, "females are inherently superior to males in fighting because males have testicles which are very vulnerable and allow females to beat males up in fights easily". Yes, women actually make this claim to gain a false sense of superiority and feel that they can actually defeat most men in a real physical fight because they can easily strike or grab the testicles...It seems to be whenever a female wants to make men feel inferior, they almost always resort to the balls and testicles. "Men are so weak, just striking the balls lightly and they're down crying in severe pain. They are the inferior sex". Think of it this way: can YOU an untrained person (or smaller person, A.K.A Manlet) beat most untrained guys larger than you since you know to go for the balls? That would be absurd and that will lead to a false sense of confidence.
Before we start with an objection to that claim. I want to again restate, we are talking about inherent inferiority, not just inferiority (see above for explanation). So that means we must compare 2 people who are in a blank slate--ex. An untrained prehistoric male adult vs untrained prehistoric female adult without weapons or clothes. Untrained is important, because amount of training is an extrinsic characteristic that doesn't answer the question of inherent intrinsic inferiority.
The obvious objection against men being inferior because of testicles that comes forth is: if women could that easily defeat men and beat them in a fight, why didn't they dominate men in the past where physical violence actually leads to plundering resources and domination/control? If women were so inherently stronger than men and could easily hurt men in the testicles, why is it that they were unable to control and dominate men in the past? (Perhaps it was because female aggression can be fatal for spreading genes and was weeded out of the gene pool--if a male that has had sex fights and dies: He still passed his genes--If a female that has had sex fights and dies, she couldn't deliver the baby and does not pass the genes..so evolution might have selected less aggressive females for this very reason and this allows men to dominate in fights since higher aggression is an advantage, but we will ignore this):
One answer to why women were not able to control and dominate men in the past is because of evolved aggression. Males have been very aggressive and dominant throughout history, so they instigated actions to attack and dominate women in the past so that women in the past were subdued and took on a submissive role to men. Additionally, pregnancy and breastfeeding limited women's physical abilities, but that is something we already talked about in the last essay and it would only serve evidence that even pregnancy/breastfeeding makes women inferior in physical fights).
Ok, so let's talk about males increased aggression compared to women. That in and of itself gives men a fight advantage because extra aggression leaves your enemy disoriented and keeping up a fast-paced fight where you are more aggressive allows you to set up positions that target vulnerable areas like the eyes easy. If males inherently have more aggression, then they are inherently advantaged in that regard during a fight.
So let me make a table including all the components together:
(This table is also posted as an attached file to this thread, incase it gets deleted)
As we can see, males inherent strength, size advantage compensates for the testicle disadvantage. In fact, it makes it much easier to attack a woman (who are generally smaller and weaker) because they can be more easily controlled which makes aiming for soft targets like the eye and neck much easier (not to mention knockouts).
This is of course on averages: you may find the occasional one females stronger than the occasional one male, but what we are talking about here are the typical and average differences between males and females (unlike my previous essay which dealt with absolutes rather than averages).
However, now let's talk about how easy it really is to strike or grab the testicles.
Let's first discuss striking the testicles. A kick for example. As someone who does kickboxing, I can tell you that it is difficult to land a kick on such a small area on a moving target. In a fight, both of you are moving so fast and you are getting struck as you try to strike the opponent. This is for trained individuals. Remember, we are talking about an untrained prehistoric woman vs. untrained prehistoric man. So these untrained women would have an even harder time striking the testicles if it is difficult for trained kickboxers. Secondly, the effect of adrenaline, especially during a fight for the death altercation would reduce the effectiveness of the groin strike.
Now, let's discuss grabbing/squeezing the testicles. It's generally a super bad idea to reach for someone's groin a situation where that's an option because then you're not protecting your head, and that guy is probably going to smash it in if you're at the ballgrabbing stage. If you look at the most recent wordstarhiphop fight comp, you'll notice most of these ghetto fights are very fast paced and it is very dangerous to put your hands down to grab the nuts. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhphoyqW12rSq1d13O Even during grappling, no real fight will be limited to just grappling, usually, the grapplers are getting struck to the face and may need both their hands to prevent lethal punches. Let's say your standing. If you are grabbing at someone's nuts, your hand is down and you are well within punching range. What do you think is going to happen? On the ground, same story really.
All you have to do is ask yourself the question: Can YOU, an untrained person beat most untrained guys larger than you since you know to go for the balls? That would be absurd and that will lead to a false sense of confidence. Testicles do not make men weak..it is certainly a weakness, but it is a weakness that evolution has compensated for. No wonder why men were dominant throughout human history and women were not. Not only were they limited by pregnancy and breastfeeding (see the previous essay: In short: If X and Y are competing, but Y has burdens that X doesn't have, then X will outcompete Y and is superior), but they are also limited in fighting ability. They have been easily dominated in the past by men. If they were stronger, why didn't they dominate the men? Because they weren't stronger and they were limited by biological burdens.
I'm writing this series unedited, as I am writing a scholarly book about the inherent inferiority of the female, and plan to get it published. This post right here is by no means similar to the scholarly form that will be written for my book. It is just a way I can share this information with my fellow incels wtithout putting much effort. I just free wrote and didn't proofread. Too long have you been force-fed the ideology that men are inferior to women. And you have sunk into a state of misogyny over the inequalities and the way you have been treated. But, as I said in my last essay. It is easier to hate someone who is inherently inferior to you.
Now, that we have discussed how females are fundamentally inferior to men and lack the capacity to compete with men, In this essay, I want to focus on physical confrontations and violent fights--especially during the past (prehistorical times).
What I mean by inherently inferior is intrinsically lesser. I DON'T mean "inferior" or "superior". I mean inferior by nature! That females are characterized by inferiority inherently. It is the essence of female. Inherent inferiority is a property that is intrinsic and inherent of females. Why do I say this? Because a female could take anabolic steroids and lift more than someone. That means they are superior to you in weight lifted, but they are still inherently inferior in inherent potential to someone with better genes but doesn't work out. To simplify this:
Person A: Takes Anabolic steroids. Terrible genes for building muscle. Trains everyday and lifts more than person B
Person B: Takes Anabolic Steroids. Excellent genes for building muscle. Does not train at the gym and lifts less weight.
What are true about these 2 persons?
(1) Obviously, Person A is superior to person B in strength! However,
(2) Person B is superior to person A in the inherent capacity to build muscle because they have excellent genes. Therefore person B is inherently superior to person A! This is an oversimplified analogy, but it works really well to explain the concept of inherent inferiority. Person B has better genes than person A. So person A is inferior by her own nature. Intrinsically, she has the property of not building as much muscle, so she is inherently inferior to person B.
[SIDE NOTE: Let's take a quiz. Which is an extrinsic property and which is the intrinsic: Weight or Mass? Mass is an intrinsic property because it does not change regardless of gravity; it is an internal property of an object. Weight is an extrinsic property because it depends on the gravity the object is in. With respect to fighting: Genetic potential for strength and aggression is an intrinsic property of a person. Level of martial arts training is an extrinsic property because it depends on amount of time training. We focus this essay only on intrinsic inherent inferiority of females, not on trained females vs. trained males (that comparison would be absurd and would not tell us anything about who is inherently inferior--one of them may have just trained harder or was feeling better/more aggressive this particular day).]
Now, let's apply this analogy to physical fights. I will mainly address the objection that states, "females are inherently superior to males in fighting because males have testicles which are very vulnerable and allow females to beat males up in fights easily". Yes, women actually make this claim to gain a false sense of superiority and feel that they can actually defeat most men in a real physical fight because they can easily strike or grab the testicles...It seems to be whenever a female wants to make men feel inferior, they almost always resort to the balls and testicles. "Men are so weak, just striking the balls lightly and they're down crying in severe pain. They are the inferior sex". Think of it this way: can YOU an untrained person (or smaller person, A.K.A Manlet) beat most untrained guys larger than you since you know to go for the balls? That would be absurd and that will lead to a false sense of confidence.
Before we start with an objection to that claim. I want to again restate, we are talking about inherent inferiority, not just inferiority (see above for explanation). So that means we must compare 2 people who are in a blank slate--ex. An untrained prehistoric male adult vs untrained prehistoric female adult without weapons or clothes. Untrained is important, because amount of training is an extrinsic characteristic that doesn't answer the question of inherent intrinsic inferiority.
The obvious objection against men being inferior because of testicles that comes forth is: if women could that easily defeat men and beat them in a fight, why didn't they dominate men in the past where physical violence actually leads to plundering resources and domination/control? If women were so inherently stronger than men and could easily hurt men in the testicles, why is it that they were unable to control and dominate men in the past? (Perhaps it was because female aggression can be fatal for spreading genes and was weeded out of the gene pool--if a male that has had sex fights and dies: He still passed his genes--If a female that has had sex fights and dies, she couldn't deliver the baby and does not pass the genes..so evolution might have selected less aggressive females for this very reason and this allows men to dominate in fights since higher aggression is an advantage, but we will ignore this):
One answer to why women were not able to control and dominate men in the past is because of evolved aggression. Males have been very aggressive and dominant throughout history, so they instigated actions to attack and dominate women in the past so that women in the past were subdued and took on a submissive role to men. Additionally, pregnancy and breastfeeding limited women's physical abilities, but that is something we already talked about in the last essay and it would only serve evidence that even pregnancy/breastfeeding makes women inferior in physical fights).
Ok, so let's talk about males increased aggression compared to women. That in and of itself gives men a fight advantage because extra aggression leaves your enemy disoriented and keeping up a fast-paced fight where you are more aggressive allows you to set up positions that target vulnerable areas like the eyes easy. If males inherently have more aggression, then they are inherently advantaged in that regard during a fight.
So let me make a table including all the components together:
(This table is also posted as an attached file to this thread, incase it gets deleted)
As we can see, males inherent strength, size advantage compensates for the testicle disadvantage. In fact, it makes it much easier to attack a woman (who are generally smaller and weaker) because they can be more easily controlled which makes aiming for soft targets like the eye and neck much easier (not to mention knockouts).
This is of course on averages: you may find the occasional one females stronger than the occasional one male, but what we are talking about here are the typical and average differences between males and females (unlike my previous essay which dealt with absolutes rather than averages).
However, now let's talk about how easy it really is to strike or grab the testicles.
Let's first discuss striking the testicles. A kick for example. As someone who does kickboxing, I can tell you that it is difficult to land a kick on such a small area on a moving target. In a fight, both of you are moving so fast and you are getting struck as you try to strike the opponent. This is for trained individuals. Remember, we are talking about an untrained prehistoric woman vs. untrained prehistoric man. So these untrained women would have an even harder time striking the testicles if it is difficult for trained kickboxers. Secondly, the effect of adrenaline, especially during a fight for the death altercation would reduce the effectiveness of the groin strike.
Now, let's discuss grabbing/squeezing the testicles. It's generally a super bad idea to reach for someone's groin a situation where that's an option because then you're not protecting your head, and that guy is probably going to smash it in if you're at the ballgrabbing stage. If you look at the most recent wordstarhiphop fight comp, you'll notice most of these ghetto fights are very fast paced and it is very dangerous to put your hands down to grab the nuts. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhphoyqW12rSq1d13O Even during grappling, no real fight will be limited to just grappling, usually, the grapplers are getting struck to the face and may need both their hands to prevent lethal punches. Let's say your standing. If you are grabbing at someone's nuts, your hand is down and you are well within punching range. What do you think is going to happen? On the ground, same story really.
All you have to do is ask yourself the question: Can YOU, an untrained person beat most untrained guys larger than you since you know to go for the balls? That would be absurd and that will lead to a false sense of confidence. Testicles do not make men weak..it is certainly a weakness, but it is a weakness that evolution has compensated for. No wonder why men were dominant throughout human history and women were not. Not only were they limited by pregnancy and breastfeeding (see the previous essay: In short: If X and Y are competing, but Y has burdens that X doesn't have, then X will outcompete Y and is superior), but they are also limited in fighting ability. They have been easily dominated in the past by men. If they were stronger, why didn't they dominate the men? Because they weren't stronger and they were limited by biological burdens.
Attachments
Last edited:
