Blackpill Women have no group loyalty (in group bias)

[AsiaCel]

By evolutionary wiring, women are vastly less loyal than men on average. If you want to make a cause that also cater to foids, such ideas like "philosophy, politics, nation" will not work; they have to see it to support an idea (for example LV bags for voting a party).

There's a reason why most societies didn't let women vote or have too much power.

I found this goldmine from Wikipedia.

Women are 4.5 times more loyal to their gender than men.

Rudman and Goodwin conducted research on gender bias that measured gender preferences without directly asking the participants. Subjects at Purdue and Rutgers University participated in computerized tasks that measured automatic attitudes based on how quickly a person categorizes pleasant and unpleasant attributes with each gender. Such a task was done to discover whether people associate pleasant words (good, happy, and sunshine) with women, and unpleasant words (bad, trouble, and pain) with men.[28]

This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[28] than those of men and only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.[28]

While men tend to be more competitive to other men, men, if competed against by a out-group, contribute more to their own group.

Using a public goods game, Van Vugt, De Cremer, and Janssen found that men contributed more to their group in the face of outside competition from another group; there was no distinct difference amongst women's contributions.[29]

Nation building is a male thing (xenophobia)

In 2001 Fershtman and Gneezy found that men showed in-group biases in a "trust" game based on ethnicity, whereas this tendency was not present in women.[30] The study aims to identify ethnic discrimination in Israeli Jewish society, and was conducted on 996 Israeli undergraduates. Groups were separated based on whether the participant's name was typically ethnically Eastern or Ashkenazic. Similar to a dictator game, subjects were instructed to divide a sum of money (20 NIS) between themselves and another player. Player A was told that any money sent over to Player B would be tripled, and Player B would receive details of the experiment, including the name of Player A and the transferred sum. Subsequently, Player B would have a choice of whether to send any money back.

The experiment found that despite sharing similar average transfer values (10.63 for women and 11.42 for men), women did not display significant in-group biases when it came to recipients with either Ashkenazic or Eastern sounding names. However, a bias against Eastern sounding names was present amongst men.[30]

Furthermore, men showed more bias for Ashkenazic men compared to women, but the opposite was true for Eastern names.[30] This result may seem counter-intuitive, as participants appear to share more in common if they were both male. Thus, we would expect Eastern females to be more marginalized, but is actually consistent with other studies which studied discrimination against Afro-American women

Boys more loyal than girls since early ages

In 2008 Fehr, Bernhard, and Rockenbach, in a study conducted on children, found that boys displayed in-group favoritism from ages 3–8, whereas girls did not display such tendencies.[32] The experiment involved usage of an "envy game", a modified version of the dictator game. A possible explanation posited by researchers relied on an evolutionary basis.[32]

They theorized that parochialism and favoring members of the same group may have been particularly advantageous as it strengthened the individuals group position in intergroup conflicts.[32] As males were the ones who were frequently at the forefront of such conflicts in the past, and thus bore the majority of the costs of conflicts in terms of injury or death, evolution may have favored a greater sensitivity in males in situations which resulted in an advantageous payoff for their in-group. Thus males tended to show in-group biases from a younger age than females, as was evident in the experiment.[32]

 

[Kamanbert]

Yeah good take. That's why matriarchy was never a thing anywhere.

While men tend to be more competitive to other men, men, if competed against by a out-group, contribute more to their own group.

It's one of the reasons why back in the day you had automatic value as an able-bodied man and could get a mate. It wasn't a socio-darwinian war of all againt all like today in the modern world but more of a competition against out-groups.

 

[SmhChan]

Their in-group bias is synthetically manufactured by men doing all the dirty-work and heavy-lifting.

Boys more loyal than girls since early ages

Ever noticed boys hardly ever fall head-over-heels to accommodate girls? They kick them out of the treehouse without a care.

 

[AsiaCel]

Ever noticed boys hardly ever fall head-over-heels to accommodate girls? They kick them out of the treehouse without a care.

Male cooperation, especially if the competition is too bad and unrealistic, is just as "true" as male competition; the kids, less indoctrinated by the media (yet), show their true color.

 

[SmhChan]

Male cooperation, especially if the competition is too bad and unrealistic, is just as "true" as male competition; the kids, less indoctrinated by the media (yet), show their true color.

I think it's less about being indoctrinated and more about not being a puppet of their own biological need to reproduce.

Have you also noticed how the popular sportsballs are far less violent nowadays? In Football for example, the rival players hug and take photos at the end of the game. It was inconceivable even a decade ago or two ago. It's because of the amount of money in sportsball which in turn gives them access to a number of foids, even to guys who'd be trucels.

 

[Kamanbert]

the kids, less indoctrinated by the media (yet), show their true color.

Anecdotal but reminds me of something that happened an hour ago.

Neighbor middle aged foid was entering the apartment with her daughter. I said hello very clearly but only the child responded to me. Brutal. This happens to me more and more by the way and it's always foids doing this. (I might be one of the few incels that has to get out of the house often as a low status man so i notice those things.)

In a few years social and media conditioning will turn that girl into a man hating witch.

 

[darkdoomer]

I think it's less about being indoctrinated and more about not being a puppet of their own biological need to reproduce.

Have you also noticed how the popular sportsballs are far less violent nowadays? In Football for example, the rival players hug and take photos at the end of the game. It was inconceivable even a decade ago or two ago. It's because of the amount of money in sportsball which in turn gives them access to a number of foids, even to guys who'd be trucels.

Yeah it's less violent trying to appeal to foids since most foids arent athletes

 

[SmhChan]

Yeah it's less violent trying to appeal to foids since most foids arent athletes

NO! It's because they don't have to 'kill each other' to earn a good living. Arguably you can find as many foids in ratio at Boxing and MMA events.

 

[underballer]

I think it's less about being indoctrinated and more about not being a puppet of their own biological need to reproduce.

Have you also noticed how the popular sportsballs are far less violent nowadays? In Football for example, the rival players hug and take photos at the end of the game. It was inconceivable even a decade ago or two ago. It's because of the amount of money in sportsball which in turn gives them access to a number of foids, even to guys who'd be trucels.

Yes in the NBA it’s often a criticism that all the players are too buddy buddy

Fans want players to hate each other and really go at each other

 

[underballer]

I think it's less about being indoctrinated and more about not being a puppet of their own biological need to reproduce.

Have you also noticed how the popular sportsballs are far less violent nowadays? In Football for example, the rival players hug and take photos at the end of the game. It was inconceivable even a decade ago or two ago. It's because of the amount of money in sportsball which in turn gives them access to a number of foids, even to guys who'd be trucels.

And ya ppl always complain about how sports (basketball, soccer) are too soft nowadays

 

[_meh]

Of course, that's why women are usually more insistent on feminism (or female nationalism) than other political ideologies.

 

[Lurkercel_678]

By evolutionary wiring, women are vastly less loyal than men on average. If you want to make a cause that also cater to foids, such ideas like "philosophy, politics, nation" will not work; they have to see it to support an idea (for example LV bags for voting a party).

There's a reason why most societies didn't let women vote or have too much power.

I found this goldmine from Wikipedia.

Women are 4.5 times more loyal to their gender than men.

While men tend to be more competitive to other men, men, if competed against by a out-group, contribute more to their own group.

Nation building is a male thing (xenophobia)

Boys more loyal than girls since early ages

Granted: there was feminism, but then again that was only really because they wanted working and voting rights to protect their own interests