you are absolutely pro women since they are your locus of control and raison detre. stop coping
Hypocrisy Why incels are the biggest feminists. [super triggering]
And that's what matters in this kind of post. To humour on our own sad existential position.
LIke even the fact he blocked me right after being called iqlet is a feminine trait. every low testosterone behaviour, is serving the feminist agenda. and incels are brimming with such behaviours.
I agree actually. If a man can put aside his anti-male bias that leads to constant in-fighting and go back and actually dig into history of men's movements, you realize nothing has changed and these guys weren't dumber than us. They just lacked data. A lot of their shit was written before dating apps existed, so from most mens perspective, chad literally didnt exist as such. Older groups primarily focused on relationships and marriage because that's all they knew. Yet, they still provided valuable insight. Now, some of them actually DID know about chad and the like of course, I have shown examples of that, guys down to the 1950s complaining about that one buddy who fucks a different girl per week etc.
But you can only realize how many times men have tried to organize and failed, and why they fail, if you put your biases aside and humble yourself, as you said. I will give some examples of old content that is similiar to .is content now:
This is an ancient website which is openly anti-female.
Another example of chad being discovered, this is from old jewish incel underground comic book artist robert crumb. Crumb only got access to pussy once he became famous and throughout his comics, he keeps complaining about being sub5 looser who just wants to fuck big chubby girls while chad cucks him. Examples:
We can go back 1000's of years and men describe exactly the same female behaviors. I have gone over that shit dozens on of times on this forum, so I won't spam examples again. The reason why men can not realize that:
a) nothing ever changes, human nature and gender relations have not changed for all of history
b) all men's groups do is to rediscover the wheel over and over every generation
It is ironically precisely because of the very biases that destroy them in the first place, aka gynocentrism, that men can not realize this. Men hate other men and worship women. And women hate men. This makes it impossible for men to form coherent in-groups because, number one, men attack each others in-groups and never compare data or progress to any stable point, instead they just are stuck in permanent tribal infighting, and number two, because society and women actively prevent men from forming groups and realizing that human nature works like this. Just look at how they are going after male spaces, the existence of this forum was directly caused by reddit destroying the growing BP movements on there.
This has happened before in history. I mentioned the "jacobean anti-feminist controversy" before - a similiar motion happened in the early 1600s, spurred by books like "the arraingment of lewd women" by josef swetnam, who was a sort of andrew tate character of the time. They mocked him and made a play where he is made fun off. And 300 years before that you had the romance of the rose controversy where the same thing happened. I have written about this over and over on this forum, if you want to find my posts just search for it.
A guy wrote a book dropping some relatable BP's on female nature. A shitstorm ensued, women started writing hate mail about the guy and got government on their side to shit on him. It keeps happening over and over and nobody learns. Civilization can not function without male exploitation and worship of women. Worship of women powers male status seeking. Male status seeking powers war, innovation, the economy. Men seeking status to gain female validatoin = male on male infighting.
The conflict between "shittok fags" vs redpill men vs mgtow men vs [insert male group here] is literally just that, it's trying to gain status over other men to get pussy. It's like screaming, no no they dont know how to please women, but we do, so they are inferior. It's still women worship. This entire fucking forum is based on men obessing over women.
And society needs us to worship women, on societies terms.
That's why they are ok with OnlyFans, because women financially benefit from it, unlike with free porn, which they are gradually outlawing. Men giving women money through OF = same wealth transfer as with marriage in past. Women committ 80% of customer spending and also incentize male spending. Absent basic necessities, almost all spending in society is incentivized by women. Men produce to gain status and female validation. They then give that surplus they generate to women in a massive wealth transfer motion, and women then spend it on dumb shit, which keeps the economy going.
Going back to benefits of reading old MRA or MGTOW content - like with this site, most users that were part of these communities contributed basically zero overall, aside from the occasstional relatable experience. However, some users always massively over-contribute. I will now give an example of some old shit that was popular back then.
NO MA'AM
no-maam.blogspot.com
The Masculine Principle
masculineprinciple.blogspot.com
It was on these blogs that I first found the "in-group" bias study I put in my "masculinity is a social construct" thread. He figured this out decades ago. I only took his finding and then expanded on it, thought about what the implications are and so on. Again, 1. you need to read or at least skim large swathes of these blogs to find this shit. 2. you need to be completely uncritical. No shit they will write things you disagree with, just absorb it all and reflect on it.
Just a quote I randomly found on there, in old blog post from 2015:
The Want of Men Was Their Ruin
If men really were as misogynist as women claim , none of this would have ever happened. We would've just put t...
masculineprinciple.blogspot.com
This is from decades ago, decades:
Zenpriest #58 - The MRM's Perpetual War With Itself
QUOTE: "Actually, the whole black MRA thing on youtube is at war right now." The whole MRA-etc. thing is at war right now - not just the b...
no-maam.blogspot.com
So you are seeing the birth of the "incel" idea and it basically comes in like a nomadic tribal force and slowly displaces the boomers of the old guard, but because of male-on-male in-group hate, the barbarians coming in do not give a fuck about the culture they are invading. They just ravage everything, say oh fuck these old boomers, they were retarded, haha and learn nothing.
This page for search term "mgtow" should be read in full. Its ancient shit but 1:1 same shit as today. It talks about how men refuse to openly attack women, how most of these mens groups are just forms of begging women to love men and so on. Let who is capable of receiving this message receive it.
Nothing ever changes, human nature has not changed. It's not feminism. It's not "modernity," or some other shit. It is people and how they are. Now, if you are christian you may identify this behavior as broken and a result of the fall. The alternative position is to see it as normal and simply the way this reality works. I dont know what your worldview is, but these are your options. Read read read this shit over and over, get it in your head, read these blogs from 20 years ago and see yourself and every man and woman you know in them. That's it.
Last edited:
bingo. its just human nature. its not feminism. there are no antifeminist men. men have to simp and bluepill maxx to coexist with foids while maintaining their sanity.
only small disagreement i have is nothing ever changes. everything flows and changes constantly. what makes us tick as humans mostly based on same principles though.
Based post. Some here are too afraid to accept the post.
sadly are friend. sadly are.
all of this shit, putting people on ignore, the constant bickering, insane focus on status, worshipping higher status people (women are by default higher status than men in eyes of society). Incels are not unique, they dont even hate women, they are obsessed with them. And the people that attack incels also always make everything about women, thus proving the blackpill while trying to debunk it. The entire debate, bluepill vs XYZ pill, academics vs incels, women vs men - its all just about who gets to monopolize foid worship. If incels had total control of society, they would just create giga female worship cult where women are protected class, just like now. Nobody hates women, nobody. To say they do is to imply people hate puppies, kittens, anime girls, children, because these are in the same group as women, protected elements.
I forgot to add this to my other post, this is from final chapter of the book "the empathy gap" by william collins where the author sums it up, after spending 100s of pages going through study after study on this shit:
Note though, he is 99% there but he is still coping by saying "gynocentrism is promoting its own invisiblity" - which to me sounds like a hint of blank slate theory, in the sense that he thinks that this is some sort of artifical, man-made system that was created at some point. In reality human nature is "Autopoiesis" to borrow a term from cybernetics - it basically is like a blueprint that self-unfolds with whatever is available in the given circumstances. Put a human in asian forest they will build shelter from bamboo, because its easily available. Put that same human mexico they will make mud houses out of adobe brick, because there is little forestation in many areas. The underlying values are the same, the human needs shelter. What they do to achieve that is secondary.
In the same fashion, human societies are and have always been as far as we can tell, gynocentric. They all shield women from harm at the expense of men. To achieve that, they use various means. In the past they might have used marriage as a tool to solicit male compliance. Now they can just use the welfare state, taxation, surveillance, censorship and other such means to achieve the same thing. OnlyFans is just the marriage contract of modernity. It is not a coincidence that they claim that most OF users are married men.
The underlying value humans have is to reproduce, provide for women and children to facilitate successful reproduction and the only way to do that is by having half of society, men, provide a surplus to women and children. Even if you dont believe in evolution, this is true and an observable and even testable fact. Call this shit gods law written on the human heart, natural law, evolutionary instinct - I dont care, functionally it works out the same.
Jews, women and other such groups are not special either, they are just operating on strong in-group bias. It is not a co-incidence that jews are matrilineal, jewish identity is based on the mother, not father. They display exactly the same behavior as women - obsession with self-victimization even when being completely in power, constant production of verbal diarrhea ("kvetching" - it even has a name in their culture), obsession with status (money, finance, hollywood is about gaining status to fuck hot women, weinstein for example), total domination of anything they infilitrate (women now control like 80% of book publishing and writing + 80% of customer purchases and many other fields, yet still larp as oppressed) and so forth.
Again, only a total ignoramus would accuse me of anti-semitism at this point, or misogyny. I am speaking about meta-ethics, meta-values, what is happening before people start acting, forming judgements etc. I am not judging, I am observing and reporting. Already I admitted above that myself and everyone here is chronically obsessed with women to point of psychosis. We worship women. I recently did a count of pictures on my laptop, around 6000 pictures. I sorted them by pictures that contained women vs ones that didnt. Can you guess the result. Yes, its like 70% pictures with women and then the rest has other shit in it. Am I the first to notice this? No.
from: "Not Guilty - The Case In Defense Of Men" (1993) by David Thomas
Replaces sins with values or human nature and jews with anything that connected to that. We are all slaves to our values, instincts, to "sin." Thats why I said earlier, either you call whatever happens normal, it just is, or you pose a supernatural corruption like in christianity, either way, its not an invention, nobody invented hate, nobody made women hate men or made men worship women. And yet I get these fucking retarded level yt recommendations "how modern dating made women hate men" and shit.
Yes, human nature was magically changed after 1000s of years, in the last 50 years, it just did a complete 180° turn and before that women were trampling each other to suck sub5 mens dick. Incredible, "basic logic" indeed. I also want to add as a final reminder that historically nobody expected marriage to be this blissful paradise, that is a commercialized invention of the last 100 years. The white dress shit for wedding only came about as a marketing strategy because queen victoria wore one for her 50th wedding anniversary and they start shilling it after that.
By contrast, in ancient christianity, and you can look this up, marriage was seen as equal to martyrdom, an extreme sacrifice for both parties equal to taking monastic vows - it was not nice, it was no cozy. Even in the book of genesis in the bible, god says to Eve,
Your desire will be for your husband (16 d Or "You will desire to control your husband")
and he will rule over you.”
In short, there will be gender war. Nowhere does it say OMG they lived happily ever after in the white picked fence trad life style. Instead we have 6000 years of men expressing impotent rage about their wifes dominating them and harassing them all day. Thats why I say, either admit you are foid worshipper like rest of us and then go from that to being open apostle of foid worship (e.g. how jews peddle porn) or try to "transcend" your desires or whatever, but dont cope with this insane idea that incels or any man is somehow superior out there. You are not a saint without desires.
Even with total self-awareness of your own foid worshipping and anti-male instincts (includes self loathing as a man btw, performative self harm = male virtue signalling), you cant escape. You just sit there with a raging boner and you cant do shit. At this point you can only cope or become religious, submit, accept humility, pray, meditate, retreat into an observer state and bide your limited time here. There are no other ways. Life is a humiliation ritual, to live is to be humbled, this is not a choice. Everyone shits the bed eventually. If you can accept that it gets much easier, you actually get some control back, paradoxically.
Oh and even if you got what you wanted, infinite supply to pussy and female validation, I don't think you would end up satisfied. It doesnt end, you would just burn out and experience massive disllusionment. We already have more than all our ancestors had combined, unimaginable luxuries to them are commonplace to us, but do we live in a constant state of bliss? OMG THE WORLD KNOWLEDGE AT MY FINGERTIPS OMG HOT WATER FROM A PIPE IN WALL ON COMMAND, OMG COOKING WITHOUT AN OPEN FIRE - nobody cares. Your baseline desires rise with your standard of living. You can never catch up.
Tantalus.
It is a lose-lose situation.
When you wageslave, your services rendered benefits foids even if you don't work for them directly. Ex: If you're wageslaving at a warehouse, those packages you're moving around, chances are, they're going to a foid's house/post office address without you knowing it. While you work overtime, they are living out their lives with their normies and chads.
When you (are required to) pay taxes, those taxes you paid end up going to services and women's health programs that benefit the foids' quality of life, and ease their way into the cock carousel, while you rot in a wagie cagie death labor camp as a KHHV with no benefits.
When you post a thread about that oneitis, it is certain that oneitis never even thought of your existence other than another nobody (non-chad/betabux) in her way. There is also a chance that your post would end up in a TikTok clip of a foid publicly mocking your post, being watched and commented by thousands, increasing her social status through your misery.
When you looksmax through surgery (no frauding included) as a means to getting a foid, you benefit foids by conforming to their hypergamous dating standards, only for you to end up getting rejected again and continuing the loop until you give up. Meanwhile, they can just cheat their looks with layers of fakeup since they dictated society that frauding looks is acceptable for foids.
Last edited:
facts
yeah, hedonic adaptation. i know chads that began smashing male ass after being tired of pussy. your object of worship and awe, is a mandane banality to someone else who got sick of it... .
To come back to this with one final thought.
You are saying incels are actually the biggest feminists. Not by the dictionary definition, but because "our entire identity and worldview revolves around foids", basically you see this as a form of foid worship.
I've been saying "speak for yourself" since my first reply, and thats still what I think.
If you looked at every real incel across the entire internet, only a small handful would actually match the extreme description you gave. Forums like this one attract mainly the most extreme, angry, blackpilled people, who do build a large part of their existence around hating and obsessing over whores. That part I understand, but even then that still doesn't account for many of us.
The vast majority of actual incels arentt like that. There are millions of incels out there, many even uglier than us, who live mostly normal lives. They don't know about the blackpill, don't post here, they don't spend their time ranting about hypergamy and shit.
So when you look at the few active people on here and act like that represents every incel ever, your argument/thread becomes ridiculous. So what you are doing is just selection bias. The whole thread is based on the most extreme cases, and your own mind that and subjective views that you think reflect every one of us.
You are saying incels are actually the biggest feminists. Not by the dictionary definition, but because "our entire identity and worldview revolves around foids", basically you see this as a form of foid worship.
I've been saying "speak for yourself" since my first reply, and thats still what I think.
If you looked at every real incel across the entire internet, only a small handful would actually match the extreme description you gave. Forums like this one attract mainly the most extreme, angry, blackpilled people, who do build a large part of their existence around hating and obsessing over whores. That part I understand, but even then that still doesn't account for many of us.
The vast majority of actual incels arentt like that. There are millions of incels out there, many even uglier than us, who live mostly normal lives. They don't know about the blackpill, don't post here, they don't spend their time ranting about hypergamy and shit.
So when you look at the few active people on here and act like that represents every incel ever, your argument/thread becomes ridiculous. So what you are doing is just selection bias. The whole thread is based on the most extreme cases, and your own mind that and subjective views that you think reflect every one of us.
no incel lives a normal life. normal life is breeding and family building and community. they are just coping and/or being bluepilled. which is another form of foid worship. if you werent so detached from toilets as you say, you wouldnt be here. period.
Funny but true. I have heard as much from chadfishers. They say if you chadfish, you get a surprising amount of good looking men hitting on you. It seems that some guys get tired of female genitalia and switch lanes to having their backstreet packed full of jam, to solicits something more from their bodies. I tried explaining hedonic adaptation and implications to a psychologist in a mental hospital and for some reason he could not grasp it. I simply said, when you realize that any action you take leads to dissatisfaction, because satisfaction never lasts, then you start wondering if there is something else to life, or if this is it, just a cycle of disatisfaction-satisfaction-disatisfaction until you die. I gave the example of a cookie.Initially you just reach for it, stuff it in your mouth. After 100 cookies you realize that the cookies never lead to satisfaction. So you switch to a meta-view and ask, why am I eating cookies? Can I stop myself from desiring cookies, since I know cookies never lead to progress towards satisfaction? As it turns out, that's impossible, and you experience profound derealization, sometimes it feels like you are watching your hands act on their own and you just observe as they stuff cookies in your mouth. Cookies are just a stand-in for any activity, goal, decision.
Like I said, he could not get it. Idk way, grown man with a degree could not follow three step logic to an inevitable conclusion about life.
thats a blackpill we all deserve though but will never get.
Initially you just reach for it, stuff it in your mouth. After 100 cookies you realize that the cookies never lead to satisfaction. So you switch to a meta-view and ask, why am I eating cookies? Can I stop myself from desiring cookies, since I know cookies never lead to progress towards satisfaction? As it turns out, that's impossible, and you experience profound derealization, sometimes it feels like you are watching your hands act on their own and you just observe as they stuff cookies in your mouth. Cookies are just a stand-in for any activity, goal, decision.
Like I said, he could not get it. Idk way, grown man with a degree could not follow three step logic to an inevitable conclusion about life.
View attachment 1751896
i like chad's nihilism.
i wish i could experience it too.
why decontruct foids with my raw intellect? thats still just in my head.
Chad demystified them with his entire existence.
i like this kind of disilusionment. its healthy. its masculine. and to a degree fulfilling, even hedonic adaptation considered.
In order to avoid foid worship/gynocentrism you need to become a cuck. There’s really no other way when you think about it
None of us are cucks hence we’re doomed to worship foids
None of us are cucks hence we’re doomed to worship foids
Last edited:
Interesting point. This isn't directly related to what you're saying, but I've recently noticed that a lot of what not just incels, but manosphere types in general, along with rightwingers, say is exactly what feminists would want and expect them to say. This is probably just me noticing it as someone who posts a lot on female-perpetrated domestic abuse and sexual aggression, which are topics feminists are pretty much at war with and which they absolutely refuse to believe are real, and which, annoyingly, just so happen to also be quite ignored among anti-feminists, but still. Instead, there's currently for example a lot of talk about repealing foids' voting rights, which basically didn't exist 10 years ago, except in foids' oppression fantasies, and which has gone from there to become mainstream, because feminists want their opponents to be for that since they've imagined it for years, while the things they don't want to acknowledge at all continue to be obscure.
The surviving texts from Roman philosophers, politicians and so on, which are types of things probably giving off the idea that they thought about foids differently than men today, only give us a tiny glimpse into their world, as they've went through multiple bottlenecks to even be created and survive.
When you look at the graffiti from Pompeii, you'll see Chads bragging about having tons of sex, random men bragging about fucking barmaids and so on, people talking about how awesome being in love is, men referring to their "beloved" (basically their girlfriends who they weren't married to) much more often than to their wives, a weird episode where an inscription is telling another guy to stop wooing a slave girl they are both infatuated with and to submit to his more handsome (Chad) rival (AKA, the guy writing the inscription), which was apparently preceded by two other surviving graffiti, and other stuff that's much more psychologically similar to modern people than what one might expect.
Ancient Rome, especially during the Empire era, was one of the most gender-egalitarian societies before modern times, even by feminism's skewed criteria for that (as in, criteria that ignore male problems and issues and only care about foids' empowerment.) We are talking about a society which had gender-equal inheritance by default. In practice, it was often prevented by a Will being written, but that doesn't change the fact that by Roman laws, if a Will didn't exist, all the children of the deceased were supposed to inherit equally regardless of gender or birth order. Not to mention that even those Wills that were made still tended to treat all children equally about as often as they tended to privilege the first-born son. Most surviving Roman litigation records are about inheritance disputes, and most of those were inheritance disputes between siblings, brothers and sisters of course included.
After that, we have copious amounts of evidence of females owning businesses in Ancient Rome or otherwise being economically active. Divorces were at will by either spouse. There are almost no legal documents concerning divorces in Ancient Rome, because they weren't a legal matter. If either of the spouses decided that the marriage was over and publicly announced it, preferably including discussions with their family and extended social circle before that, then the marriage was over.
And finally, there's emerging evidence that women were a large part of Rome's internal migrants, being between a third to a half of all internal civilian migrants (civilian specifically because military migration consisting of legionnaires settling in the places they were stationed in was a significant amount of Rome's internal migration, and it was of course 100% male); their migratory paths were notably different from men's, which implies that they didn't migrate for work anywhere as often as men did unlike what the guy behind the study I linked thought, unless Rome's labour market was very gendered, but it also strongly implies that they travelled independently without their male relatives who would be their legal guardians, and weakly also implies it wasn't just marriage migration.
Which, btw, also strongly undercuts the supposed male power over foids in Rome. Even in people's living memory, before the internet and social media, if you lost contact with someone, you would probably never seen them again even if you tried to find them. Now imagine living in Ancient Rome, with absolutely no mass/instant communication technologies, and the foid who you are supposed to be the male guardian of with extreme power over her and whatnot, has moved 700 miles away on her own. Well, how are you going to exercise any power over her in that scenario?
Unfortunate stumble after a thought-provoking post (unless you meant Ancient Greece, and even that one is very questionable).
The surviving texts from Roman philosophers, politicians and so on, which are types of things probably giving off the idea that they thought about foids differently than men today, only give us a tiny glimpse into their world, as they've went through multiple bottlenecks to even be created and survive.
When you look at the graffiti from Pompeii, you'll see Chads bragging about having tons of sex, random men bragging about fucking barmaids and so on, people talking about how awesome being in love is, men referring to their "beloved" (basically their girlfriends who they weren't married to) much more often than to their wives, a weird episode where an inscription is telling another guy to stop wooing a slave girl they are both infatuated with and to submit to his more handsome (Chad) rival (AKA, the guy writing the inscription), which was apparently preceded by two other surviving graffiti, and other stuff that's much more psychologically similar to modern people than what one might expect.
Ancient Rome, especially during the Empire era, was one of the most gender-egalitarian societies before modern times, even by feminism's skewed criteria for that (as in, criteria that ignore male problems and issues and only care about foids' empowerment.) We are talking about a society which had gender-equal inheritance by default. In practice, it was often prevented by a Will being written, but that doesn't change the fact that by Roman laws, if a Will didn't exist, all the children of the deceased were supposed to inherit equally regardless of gender or birth order. Not to mention that even those Wills that were made still tended to treat all children equally about as often as they tended to privilege the first-born son. Most surviving Roman litigation records are about inheritance disputes, and most of those were inheritance disputes between siblings, brothers and sisters of course included.
After that, we have copious amounts of evidence of females owning businesses in Ancient Rome or otherwise being economically active. Divorces were at will by either spouse. There are almost no legal documents concerning divorces in Ancient Rome, because they weren't a legal matter. If either of the spouses decided that the marriage was over and publicly announced it, preferably including discussions with their family and extended social circle before that, then the marriage was over.
And finally, there's emerging evidence that women were a large part of Rome's internal migrants, being between a third to a half of all internal civilian migrants (civilian specifically because military migration consisting of legionnaires settling in the places they were stationed in was a significant amount of Rome's internal migration, and it was of course 100% male); their migratory paths were notably different from men's, which implies that they didn't migrate for work anywhere as often as men did unlike what the guy behind the study I linked thought, unless Rome's labour market was very gendered, but it also strongly implies that they travelled independently without their male relatives who would be their legal guardians, and weakly also implies it wasn't just marriage migration.
Which, btw, also strongly undercuts the supposed male power over foids in Rome. Even in people's living memory, before the internet and social media, if you lost contact with someone, you would probably never seen them again even if you tried to find them. Now imagine living in Ancient Rome, with absolutely no mass/instant communication technologies, and the foid who you are supposed to be the male guardian of with extreme power over her and whatnot, has moved 700 miles away on her own. Well, how are you going to exercise any power over her in that scenario
?
as we said with another commenter here, simping is in male nature. and wanting to brag for getting foids (because its naturally hard to do and we are wired for it). they were as simps then as now. problem is they didnt have a concept of "women incel me". because they saw them as res. as objects. their love was easily bought or extorted. (ass should be happening today too). so the fact they gave foids rights is irrelevant. even in ancient athens, pallakides, the high end escorts, gained political power. at least they were based enough to show foids their place that only through your pussy you deserve to ascend.Interesting point. This isn't directly related to what you're saying, but I've recently noticed that a lot of what not just incels, but manosphere types in general, along with rightwingers, say is exactly what feminists would want and expect them to say. This is probably just me noticing it as someone who posts a lot on female-perpetrated domestic abuse and sexual aggression, which are topics feminists are pretty much at war with and which they absolutely refuse to believe are real, and which, annoyingly, just so happen to also be quite ignored among anti-feminists, but still. Instead, there's currently for example a lot of talk about repealing foids' voting rights, which basically didn't exist 10 years ago, except in foids' oppression fantasies, and which has gone from there to become mainstream, because feminists want their opponents to be for that since they've imagined it for years, while the things they don't want to acknowledge at all continue to be obscure.
Unfortunate stumble after a thought-provoking post (unless you meant Ancient Greece, and even that one is very questionable).
The surviving texts from Roman philosophers, politicians and so on, which are types of things probably giving off the idea that they thought about foids differently than men today, only give us a tiny glimpse into their world, as they've went through multiple bottlenecks to even be created and survive.
When you look at the graffiti from Pompeii, you'll see Chads bragging about having tons of sex, random men bragging about fucking barmaids and so on, people talking about how awesome being in love is, men referring to their "beloved" (basically their girlfriends who they weren't married to) much more often than to their wives, a weird episode where an inscription is telling another guy to stop wooing a slave girl they are both infatuated with and to submit to his more handsome (Chad) rival (AKA, the guy writing the inscription), which was apparently preceded by two other surviving graffiti, and other stuff that's much more psychologically similar to modern people than what one might expect.
Ancient Rome, especially during the Empire era, was one of the most gender-egalitarian societies before modern times, even by feminism's skewed criteria for that (as in, criteria that ignore male problems and issues and only care about foids' empowerment.) We are talking about a society which had gender-equal inheritance by default. In practice, it was often prevented by a Will being written, but that doesn't change the fact that by Roman laws, if a Will didn't exist, all the children of the deceased were supposed to inherit equally regardless of gender or birth order. Not to mention that even those Wills that were made still tended to treat all children equally about as often as they tended to privilege the first-born son. Most surviving Roman litigation records are about inheritance disputes, and most of those were inheritance disputes between siblings, brothers and sisters of course included.
After that, we have copious amounts of evidence of females owning businesses in Ancient Rome or otherwise being economically active. Divorces were at will by either spouse. There are almost no legal documents concerning divorces in Ancient Rome, because they weren't a legal matter. If either of the spouses decided that the marriage was over and publicly announced it, preferably including discussions with their family and extended social circle before that, then the marriage was over.
And finally, there's emerging evidence that women were a large part of Rome's internal migrants, being between a third to a half of all internal civilian migrants (civilian specifically because military migration consisting of legionnaires settling in the places they were stationed in was a significant amount of Rome's internal migration, and it was of course 100% male); their migratory paths were notably different from men's, which implies that they didn't migrate for work anywhere as often as men did unlike what the guy behind the study I linked thought, unless Rome's labour market was very gendered, but it also strongly implies that they travelled independently without their male relatives who would be their legal guardians, and weakly also implies it wasn't just marriage migration.
Which, btw, also strongly undercuts the supposed male power over foids in Rome. Even in people's living memory, before the internet and social media, if you lost contact with someone, you would probably never seen them again even if you tried to find them. Now imagine living in Ancient Rome, with absolutely no mass/instant communication technologies, and the foid who you are supposed to be the male guardian of with extreme power over her and whatnot, has moved 700 miles away on her own. Well, how are you going to exercise any power over her in that scenario
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
- VersoffenerAssi
