Blackpill Women Opposed Female Rights, Not Men [Study]

[GeckoBus]

video


View: https://youtu.be/WQpC_5Ha7Ng


PDF from video is attached here:

9.72 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

TLDR - women know their privileges and power. Voting rights for women seemed to take that power from them, and make them equal to men (slaves).
So women actually fought to NOT get rights for a long time, and it was men that forced rights on women.
I wish I was joking.

@WorthlessSlavicShit

---

Other information showing that women were never kept from working or having power:

• From the 13th to the 17th Century most brewers were women, a survey in 1228 found 80% of brewers in towns were female [75].
• The norm of most women working lasted until the industrial era. A study of 1,350 working-class households from early 19th Century Britain suggests that the husbands’ proportion of family earning was as low as 55 percent.
• Between 1787 to 1815 in families with unemployed children (!) wives earned 41 percent of household income. [28]
• In this same period 66% of married women had a recorded occupation. [29]
• In 1833 Britain, women made up 57% – the majority – of factory workers. [30] [31]

Marriage as economic slavery – GreenPill.net

greenpill.net

"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930.

During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched.

Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."" --

- Extract from David Thomas' book, "Not Guilty - The Case in Defense of Men"


From another paper, investigating female business-ownership in the 1800s:

The comprehensive information provided in the trade directories allows the creation of an extensive database gathering data on over 30,000 female-owned businesses in the two industrialized cities,

https://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2022/2022-24.pdf

Women could also vote long before what they tell us:

Women voted 75 years before they were legally allowed to in 1918

A new document has surfaced which shows British women, of all classes, voting in 1843, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. History professor, Sarah Richardson, explains what this discovery means and how it was possible.

www.telegraph.co.uk

The next thing is that men have complained about the law favoring women for centuries. Long before "modern feminism."
See for example this whole book here from the 1800s:

The Legal Subjection of Men - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Even in the 1930s women were responsible for 80% of customer spending:

Research Guides: Consumer Advertising During the Great Depression: A Resource Guide: Gender and Advertising

This guide explores primary and secondary sources that examine the advertising industry from 1929 to 1933, including advertising agencies, consumer protection groups, and topical sources on gender, race, and radio in advertising.

guides.loc.gov

86% of Women Felt They Already Had The Right To Live As They Pleased in 1970 and Did Not Support The Feminist Movement:​

View: https://www.scribd.com/document/229918209/86-of-Women-Felt-They-Already-Had-the-Right-to-Live-as-They-Pleased-in-1970-and-Did-Not-Support-the-Feminist-Movement


One of the first lawcodes ever included alimony/spousal support payments from husband to wife in case of divorce:

The Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) declares that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children so that she can raise them:

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.[3]

Alimony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is just the tip of the iceberg of course. The point is, human nature has never changed. People worshiped women at any time in history, they were never oppressed. Women are neotenous, so are children and other things humans instinctively protect and worship. Puppies, art, kittens and even fluffy clouds - they all have neotenous features.

Logically it follows that if neoteny is the criteria by which humans engage in these looks-biases, then there is no reason to believe these biases did not exist in the past.
People always treated women with privileges. The proof is always in the pudding. For instance, take a culture like the Aztecs that scarified children. The fact alone that they considered children to be a "higher quality sacrifice" shows you they were biased towards neoteny.

We also have quotes from ancient times, speaking of marital trouble. Like that famous one by the greek Hipponax, who wrote that a mans two best days are when he fuggs his wife on the wedding night and the day he buries her. This is cultural information coming from one of the most "misogynistic" cultures ever, according to historians. If they viewed women as disposable trash, how come they had marital trouble? This does not even make sense.

This is an endless topic and I am not about to make another 10000 word thread on this. Do you own research, I have given enough sources for you to start.
Before I end my thread, I will throw another bomb at tradcopers though:

- Islam only became anti-gay in the last 100 years after contact with the west.

Literature and art flourished as significant mediums for discussing gender and sexuality, with Ottoman poets openly exploring same-sex love in the arts until the 19th century, when Westernization led to the stigmatization of homosexuality, potentially influencing the censorship of certain literary scenes.

Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Islam before 1900s was fine with pedophilia and gay sex, so much so they made countless illustrations of men fucking each other.
I will not include pics, but you can easily find it online, under shit like "ottoman empire gay illustrations."

- In Islam the wife can work, earn her own money and keep it. Don't take it from me, listen to them say it:


View: https://youtu.be/JQaQo0du5h0


Humanity is martriarchial. We have an instinct to protect children so we keep reproducing.
We recognize kids by certian physical features which can be summed up under the term "neoteny."
Women, puppies, babies, kittens, anime characters etc share these features.
Hence they are regarded fondly.

I recently realized that it's not just walking around with a woman that makes you seem more trustworthy to strangers,
heck, even a puppy or kitten will do it.
Sometimes you even hear fathers talk about how they take their baby children out, because it attracts women.

So why would this be different in the past, or in another culture? Do humans not value their children in other cultures?
Does "the species" not prioritze it's own "survival" above all?
Again, if it is literally the human survival instinct that is tied to neoteny...
and neoteny is the cause of female worship, then why would it be different anywhere?
It is the strongest instinct there this.

Killing a neotenous creature is like comitting genocide on instinctual level to people.
Imagine the most valuable thing you have. Kill switch that instantly explodes your head, if you want.
You would tripple lock and seal that shit in 2 safes inside each other and then burry them 900km under the south pole.
That's what humans do with women.
This is why they can't fail. Humanity will not let them, because it mistakingly sees them as children, the key to the future, because women share traits with children.

And women deliberately enhance this bias by acting and looking more neotenous - make up, acting retarded and cute etc.
Do you see how it all connects? Look at my thread in must-read, "masculinity is a social construct" - Women are the only gender that deliberately undergoes huge pains to look more neotenous, while actively forcing the other gender to look less neotenous (scars on men, muscles, fighting).

Masculinity is down stream form female wants. Male behavior is based on female behavior:

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if
they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl
Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45
male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also
seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did
next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’
says Grammer”

– New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

143 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

As always, this is all merely descriptive information. I am merely shining a light on stuff. How you deal with it, the prescriptive part, is up to you.


That's all.
Have a Good Day.

@WorthlessSlavicShit (informationcel)
@Cybersex is our hope (sexes me XD)
@pisswolf (funny name kek)
@NearEnd (here you go, I made another post)
@reveries (slav commando)

 

[EngelCallDell19]

Another high iq splendid thread

 

[kay']

Another banger by greckobussy which im not gona read because im too suicidal rn

 

[iitbraincel]

you are the only reason .is is worth lurking, high iq brocel

 

[slavcel11]

another high IQ thread, will read later 100%

 

[iitbraincel]

you are the only reason .is is worth lurking, high iq brocel

Any marxist interested in the history of female favouring laws should definitely read Belfort Bax

 

[Moroccancel2-]

High IQ, brocel.

We will never understand the general blackpill and how it shapes the world if we do not understand how primarily it is the foids that manipulate men and how they are the ones that dominate not only the sexual market, but the parasitic and hypocritical attitude of benefiting at the expense of men, fuckable or unfuckable on their standards.

 

[Moroccancel2-]

Any marxist interested in the history of female favouring laws should definitely read Belfort Bax

Many marxist nigs are obsessed with Engels' Origin of the Family and do not leave that biased and sterile analysis of "patriarchy, man exploits woman." A fact that later led Marxists-Leninists like A. Kollontai to defend stupidities like free love: which is the same, women sharing chads while the State subsidizes their existence through brocels working and without receiving no pussy.

 

[iitbraincel]

Many marxist nigs are obsessed with Engels' Origin of the Family and do not leave that biased and sterile analysis of "patriarchy, man exploits woman." A fact that later led Marxists-Leninists like A. Kollontai to defend stupidities like free love: which is the same, women sharing chads while the State subsidizes their existence through brocels working and without receiving no pussy.

the majority of all political movements being written for the benefit of chad is obvious, I focus on getting real information from wherever I can, and marxism is a good framework for independent self discovery anyways

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Just when I was looking for something to add to my pile of things to read or watch today, Gecko posts another sure to be epic thread.

 

[GeckoBus]

Any marxist interested in the history of female favouring laws should definitely read Belfort Bax

Always shocking to read these older text and see how they mirror modern day examples. Nothing changes.
We have to remember that most of history is lost, especially the mundane parts, which is what matters to us. Gender relations are not recorded. What recorded history amounts to is the waffling equivalent of an ancient reddit thread, usually written by a member of the respective top 10% of the society at the time.

They do not reflect the war on the ground at all. It is like how right wingers nowadays worship the romans and greeks, citing them over and over. But they miss that 90% of their population was uneducated slaves in terrible health, living mostly on cheap grain, eating fast food in the cities and living in high rise hubs like rats. Only the upper echelon of society could even read and write. The average roman probably was an unfit manlet with manboobs from drinking beer and eating bread all the time.

The roman army even refused to recruit city people because of this, they were too unhealthy.
Same old, same old.

And in the rare instances you find a text written on "ground level," i.e. some document on domestic stuff, gender relations etc - it always confirms our observations. Times change, political systems change, but really, for us plebs its just a change of management.
Like nagging wifes didn't exist under Emperor Poopenfartz the third jfl.

High IQ, brocel.

We will never understand the general blackpill and how it shapes the world if we do not understand how primarily it is the foids that manipulate men and how they are the ones that dominate not only the sexual market, but the parasitic and hypocritical attitude of benefiting at the expense of men, fuckable or unfuckable on their standards.

I would go even further. It is not women, they just harness the power of the already existing bias towards anything with neotenous features.
It's a larger than life problem. The media uses neoteny all the time when they report on animal shit, use cute reporters, talk about child abuse etc. Products have cartoon characters on them for a reason. Anime booms as the western media abandons neotenous characters.

It is all so predictable.
And in the middle of the storm, women struggle to monopolize neoteny, like it is some magical force. Anything neotenous that is not tied to physical females must be subdued - video games, anime, AI girls, porn. It is a power struggle ultimately.

This is also how I think I can predict that we will go back to 1950s style larp "conservative trad" lifestyle in the future - and women will enforce it because it benefits them, not men.

 

[GeckoBus]

Just when I was looking for something to add to my pile of things to read or watch today, Gecko posts another sure to be epic thread.

kek thx but its just 90% old stuff I have already posted. I just saw the video from "a shield for men" and wanted to repost it here. Just another broken sword for the pile of shitty trad arguments.

btw I really liked this old thread of yours, I missed it and only saw it yesterday:

Girls are more likely to target the opposite sex with aggression than boys

Abstract from the paper: Direct and indirect aggressive behaviors were studied using surveys and interviews of students in two public schools. The variables of “sex-of-aggressor” and “sex-of-target” were included. Claims in previous research that girls engage in far more indirect aggression than...

incels.is

This is just another example of female in-group bias of course. Great thread

 

[Adolf Kitler]

Must-read content tier thread

 

[NearEnd]

Interesting thread as always. It actually makes sense to me. Im also going to make sure to read more about this topic myself

 

[reveries]

Thanks for tagging me brocel, can already see it's high effort as usual, gonna read every molecule of it once I'm back from wagecucking

 

[Paperman]

Yes, good high IQ post, we need more of this.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

From another paper, investigating female business-ownership in the 1800s:

Still one of the best finds ever posted on this site.

I got immediately reminded of that when I found this study:

‘On herself and all her property’: women's economic activities in late-medieval Ghent

This article analyses the economic activities of urban Flemish women in actual practice, using contracts and court judgements from the mid-fourteenth-century registers of the aldermen of Ghent. These ‘acts’ show that women routinely invested and managed their own property without male representatives and that distinctions of marital status were often far less significant in medieval Ghent than elsewhere in northern Europe. Another conceptualization of the scope of women's economic activity also existed at the time, in which men acted for women, but it was not the dominant norm in mid-fourteenth-century Ghent.

Jfl, just look at the wording there. A simple, logical conclusion would be that the situation in this city was similar to that of the neighbouring cultures and kingdoms, given that their nobles were intermarrying, they were interacting together and were just similar in general, so they throw this assurance there to tell us that this city was definitely an outlier, and then they don't expand on that.

We also have quotes from ancient times, speaking of marital trouble. Like that famous one by the greek Hipponax, who wrote that a mans two best days are when he fuggs his wife on the wedding night and the day he buries her. This is cultural information coming from one of the most "misogynistic" cultures ever, according to historians. If they viewed women as disposable trash, how come they had marital trouble? This does not even make sense.

OK, this was a funny read.

Hipponax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and he was reputed to be physically deformed

Predictable tbh.

In one fragment, Hipponax decries "Bupalus, the mother-fucker (μητροκοίτης) with Arete", the latter evidently being the mother of Bupalus, yet Arete is presented as performing fellatio on Hipponax in another fragment and, elsewhere, Hipponax complains "Why did you go to bed with that rogue Bupalus?", again apparently referring to Arete (whose name ironically is Greek for 'virtue').

Muh "women were trad and pure before feminism".

in fragment 92, a tattered papyrus which narrates a sexual encounter in a malodorous privy, where a Lydian-speaking woman performs some esoteric and obscene rites on the narrator, including beating his genitals with a fig branch and inserting something up his anus, provoking incontinence and finally an attack by dung beetles

Human nature truly has always been the same.

 

[GeckoBus]

Still one of the best finds ever posted on this site.

I got immediately reminded of that when I found this study:

‘On herself and all her property’: women's economic activities in late-medieval Ghent


Jfl, just look at the wording there. A simple, logical conclusion would be that the situation in this city was similar to that of the neighbouring cultures and kingdoms, given that their nobles were intermarrying, they were interacting together and were just similar in general, so they throw this assurance there to tell us that this city was definitely an outlier, and then they don't expand on that.


OK, this was a funny read.

Hipponax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Predictable tbh.


Muh "women were trad and pure before feminism".


Human nature truly has always been the same.

Amazing reply, as always
Yeah, the Hipponax lore is funny af.
My favorite part is when he had oneitits for a guys daughter but when he asked for her hand in marriage, her father made fun of him.
So Hipponax went fucking ER and started talking mad trash, so mad in fact, that the dude fucking roped.

And this is just a snippet of history. Think about this, someone had to preserve the Hipponax lore. Some medieval monk sat in a chamber, quill and feather, copying Hipponax lore of people putting shit in their ass and stuff.

Also yeah, human nature has never changed at any point.
So many examples, it truly never ends:

Look at this lil'l thing, spreading its pussy for us awww so cute!

There are 124 of them on the walls of irish churches alone. Fesh eh?

Sheela na gig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's skip ancient sex toys (the early church literally told priests to ask ppl if they had them).

The free sexuality of the early Middle Ages can be traced in early court records, which list numerous sexual offences,from fornication and adultery to incest and homosexuality,and also in the complaints of moralists and Church dignitaries. Thus in the eighth century, Boniface exclaims that the English "utterly despise matrimony" and he is filled with shame because they "utterly refuse to have legitimate wives, and continue to live in lechery and adultery after the manner neighing horses and braying asses...." A century later Alcuin declares that

...

Three centuries after this John of Salisbury puts his views in verse:

Thys is now a common synne
For almost hyt is every-whore
A gentyle man hath a wife and a hore;
And wyves have now comunly
Here husbandys and a ludby

Mediaeval sexual behaviour

How during the Middle Ages the Church's demand for sexual abstinence made medieval Europe resemble a vast insane asylum (1954)

www.ourdecline.com

St. Augustine of Hippo even said that prostitution was a necessary evil to keep society stable. He lived in the 5th century AD.

Indeed, the church did not hesitate to denounce prostitution as morally wrong, but as St. Augustine explained: "If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts" (Richards, 118). Thus, the general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform, either by marrying or by becoming nuns. In fact, there were many religious sanctuaries set up specifically for prostitutes who wished to quit the profession (Bullough, 183).

Decameron Web | Society

This is a hole that is endless.
Another thing is medieval bath houses and prostitution. Men and women would bathe naked in these giant hot tubs and fuck and feast.
They had to ban them in cities because STD's were exploding through them.

Remember when Trump said "grab them by the pussy?"
Well, he might have actually been referencing this little tidbit of forgotten history:

Gropecunt Lane - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about this lady and her public stunts:

Priss Fotheringham (née Priscilla Carsewell, c. 1615 – c. 1668)...

Her fame stemmed partly from her popularisation of the novelty sex act of 'chucking', which dated back to ancient Rome.[7] She would stand on her head naked with her legs apart and have customers throw coins into her vagina.[13] "According to legend, she could fit 16 half-crowns (40 shillings) in there", notes one modern commentator.[14] On some occasions wine was also poured into her commodity.[15] She performed chucking several times a day.[15] The tavern was nicknamed Priscilla Fotheringham's Chuck Office,[7] and the Half Crown Chuck Office.[16]

Priss Fotheringham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this:

In the early 1700s, one in five women living in London were working as prostitutes.[19]

Prostitution in early modern England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this old thread from our site (kinda long but good read, giga blackpill):

[JBpill] Teen and pre-teen prostitutes were common in New York during the 1800s

The book is City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920 by Timothy Gilfoyle. You can find it on LibGen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gilfoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis Chapter 3: "The Whorearchy", the best JBpill chapter...

incels.is

What about all the various christian cults and sects that early writers listed?
Take for instance, the Adamites.
They were medieval hippies who believed man should live like in eden, aka, run around naked and shit:

Neo-Adamites – a term applied in the 13th to 15th century to those, including Taborites, Picards and some Beghards, who wished to return to the purity of the life of Adam by living communally, practicing social and religious nudity, embracing free love and rejecting marriage and individual ownership of property.

Adamites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Heresy in Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh no tradbros, I thought this shit was all "modern ideologies" and only came about wen da ebil Karl Marx and his bumbuddies "twisted everyones mind" and sheeeiett.

Various sects also were busy eating cum, feces and menstrual blood:

Epiphanius of Salamis records that The Greater Questions of Mary contained an episode in which Jesus took Mary Magdalene up to the top of a mountain, where he pulled a woman out of his side and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Then, upon ejaculating, Jesus drank his own semen and told Mary, "Thus we must do, that we may live." Upon hearing this, Mary instantly fainted, to which Jesus responded by helping her up and telling her, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"[6]

He also alleges that, whenever one of the women in their church was experiencing her monthly period, they would take her menstrual blood and everyone in the church would eat it as part of a sacred ritual.[10]

Barbelo to appear repeatedly to the archons in an attractive form so as to collect their semen, and in the process of doing so recover the power that had been "sown" in them.[9]

Borborites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sounds a lot like No-Fap and Semen retention niggas in our time. HARNESS THE POWA OF UR MAN JUECEEEE! NOT ONEE DRAWP SHALL GO TO WASTE!

Oh. They also played with aborted fetuses, sorry, I forgot that part ha ha whoops

The Borborites were also said to extract fetuses from pregnant women and consume them, particularly if the women accidentally became pregnant during related sexual rituals.[11] Buckley notes that this implies treatment of an aborted foetus as "strayed semen", and would serve to prevent it from developing into another body "for the archons' clutches".[1]

Truly, nothing changes.
Nowadays that shit is used for beauty products.

You really have to giga blindfold yourself and not look at history for one fucking second to miss all this shit. It's all over the place, literally.
There is far less evidence for "traditionalism" than there is for the opposite. I remember reading Epictetus writings, and there is one part where a twink asks him something. And Epictetus roasts him for shaving his nuts and hes like, you look like a woman, go hang yourself.

A certain young rhetorician coming to him with his hair too elaborately ornamented, and his dress very fine,...

Of what have you to accuse your nature, sir, that it has made you a man? Why, were all to be born women, then? In that case what would have been the use of your finery? For whom would you have made yourself fine, if all were women? But the whole affair displeases you. Go to work upon the whole,then. Remove your manhood itself and make yourself a woman entirely, that we may be no longer deceived, nor you be half man, half woman. To whom would you be agreeable, -to the women? Be agreeable to them as a man.

"Ay; but they are pleased with fops."

Go hang yourself.

Epictetus, Discourses, book 3

The fact alone that soys were around back then kek.
It is always the same shit. Trannies vs ancient Alex Jones and his Disciples.

This is apparently from the middle ages. Priests were instructed to ask plebs if they made dildos and pegged each other:

Have you done what certain women are accustomed to do, that is, to make some sort of device or implement in the shape of the male member, of the size to match your desire, and you have fastened it to the area of your genitals or those of another with some form of fastenings and you have fornicated with other women or others have done with a similar instrument or another sort with you? If you have done this you shall do penance for five years on legitimate holy days.[1]

On Sex Toys and Penance | Medieval History

kekfuel tbh

but not as kekfuel as the second half:

Have you done what some women are wont to do? They take a live fish and put it in their vagina, keeping it there for a while until it is dead. Then they cook or roast it and give it to their husbands to eat, doing this in order to make the men be more ardent in their love for them. If you have, you should do two years of penance on the appointed fast days.[2]

YUM YUM TRAD CHUM
YES MUH MEDIEVAL TRAD WAIFU SERVING ME VA-JAY-JAY FISH YUMMMMM

I have seen this IRL btw.
When you trap people in positions of inferiority, they will look for subtle ways to take revenge i.e. spit in your food, put boogers in your spaghetti etc.

My mom deliberately didn't wash her hands after shitting and then served us food and shit. One time my sister grabbed some food and my mom took it and said NO thats the bad piece, thats for your dad! - I don't even want to know.

A more crass result of this stuff was that tons of women would just poison their husbands, 100s of them.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmT2ChU8pE


It just keeps going, this shit is like pandoras box. There is so much content. Suffice to say, our time is not more degen than the past.
Oh, I did not even get into women putting drugs in their pussy in the renaissance and getting "high" aka "witch flights."

The administration of drugs into the vagina is one of the oldest forms of pharmacotherapy. The vagina was among the five routes of drug administration considered in ancient Egypt, with first known written records about this practice dating back to circa 1850 BCE [14].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/intravaginal-administration

Anecdotally - in my sisters school girls would soak tampons in alcohol and then put in their pussy. It apparently works.

According to Hults, ”the drugs in witches’ ointments would have aroused
sensitive vaginal membranes, a motive that probably also lay behind the greasing of the
various staffs on which witches flew.”68 Vaginas, being mucous membranes, absorb the
intoxicating hallucinogens more readily than taking the drugs by mouth or through the
skin. Durschmied posits that these drugs allowed for relaxed inhibitions, allowing for the
group sex frequently described in confessed witches’ testimonies.69

https://digital.library.txst.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f50cc44f-a619-4949-a17f-397fd11b9e09/content

OHHH SHIEEET GANGBANG IN THE HAMLET YEEE SCOOT SCOOT THEY ON DAT WITCH SHIT
pussy pasty was probably the fentanyl of the middle ages ngl ded srs

Witch hunts = war against drugs theoy
They were burning drug dealers.

This is getting too long, it's just too much. I can't. Sorry, jfl. If anybody claims we are more degenerate than people putting fish in their pussy and making DIY dildos from oiled horse leather, they have lost the plot.
Thx for your reply bro, I fuk wit da love

 

[SmhChan]

Another possible W post. Will read it when I'm in the right frame of mind.

 

[SandNiggerKANG]

Will listen to this with the MS edge “read aloud” feature so I can process it better

 

[SandNiggerKANG]

more high IQ material to listen to and read

 

[reveries]

That was a brutal fucking read. I never realized just how much we've been lied to about women being oppressed in the past, I knew it was bs since it was always men dying at wars and being responsible for everything, but I just realized that, actually, nothing was different in all the other regards too. They were always in the exact position they wanted to be, getting the most resources and being protected, even if men were more "based" in some periods of history. The human nature was always the same. People were always protecting neoteny, it's in our blood.
Feminism just makes up the notion of past oppression to excuse and justify their present psychopathy.
Total ragefuel.

Also makes me wonder, does this mean only neotenous things can be truly unconditionally loved? Does the love a masculine chad receives differs from the one a prettyboy chad gets?

 

[darkdoomer]

video


View: https://youtu.be/WQpC_5Ha7Ng


PDF from video is attached here:

9.72 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

TLDR - women know their privileges and power. Voting rights for women seemed to take that power from them, and make them equal to men (slaves).
So women actually fought to NOT get rights for a long time, and it was men that forced rights on women.
I wish I was joking.

@WorthlessSlavicShit

---

Other information showing that women were never kept from working or having power:

• From the 13th to the 17th Century most brewers were women, a survey in 1228 found 80% of brewers in towns were female [75].
• The norm of most women working lasted until the industrial era. A study of 1,350 working-class households from early 19th Century Britain suggests that the husbands’ proportion of family earning was as low as 55 percent.
• Between 1787 to 1815 in families with unemployed children (!) wives earned 41 percent of household income. [28]
• In this same period 66% of married women had a recorded occupation. [29]
• In 1833 Britain, women made up 57% – the majority – of factory workers. [30] [31]

Marriage as economic slavery – GreenPill.net

greenpill.net

- Extract from David Thomas' book, "Not Guilty - The Case in Defense of Men"


From another paper, investigating female business-ownership in the 1800s:

https://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2022/2022-24.pdf

Women could also vote long before what they tell us:

Women voted 75 years before they were legally allowed to in 1918

A new document has surfaced which shows British women, of all classes, voting in 1843, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. History professor, Sarah Richardson, explains what this discovery means and how it was possible.

www.telegraph.co.uk

The next thing is that men have complained about the law favoring women for centuries. Long before "modern feminism."
See for example this whole book here from the 1800s:

The Legal Subjection of Men - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Even in the 1930s women were responsible for 80% of customer spending:

Research Guides: Consumer Advertising During the Great Depression: A Resource Guide: Gender and Advertising

This guide explores primary and secondary sources that examine the advertising industry from 1929 to 1933, including advertising agencies, consumer protection groups, and topical sources on gender, race, and radio in advertising.

guides.loc.gov

86% of Women Felt They Already Had The Right To Live As They Pleased in 1970 and Did Not Support The Feminist Movement:​

View: https://www.scribd.com/document/229918209/86-of-Women-Felt-They-Already-Had-the-Right-to-Live-as-They-Pleased-in-1970-and-Did-Not-Support-the-Feminist-Movement


One of the first lawcodes ever included alimony/spousal support payments from husband to wife in case of divorce:

Alimony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is just the tip of the iceberg of course. The point is, human nature has never changed. People worshiped women at any time in history, they were never oppressed. Women are neotenous, so are children and other things humans instinctively protect and worship. Puppies, art, kittens and even fluffy clouds - they all have neotenous features.

Logically it follows that if neoteny is the criteria by which humans engage in these looks-biases, then there is no reason to believe these biases did not exist in the past.
People always treated women with privileges. The proof is always in the pudding. For instance, take a culture like the Aztecs that scarified children. The fact alone that they considered children to be a "higher quality sacrifice" shows you they were biased towards neoteny.

We also have quotes from ancient times, speaking of marital trouble. Like that famous one by the greek Hipponax, who wrote that a mans two best days are when he fuggs his wife on the wedding night and the day he buries her. This is cultural information coming from one of the most "misogynistic" cultures ever, according to historians. If they viewed women as disposable trash, how come they had marital trouble? This does not even make sense.

This is an endless topic and I am not about to make another 10000 word thread on this. Do you own research, I have given enough sources for you to start.
Before I end my thread, I will throw another bomb at tradcopers though:

- Islam only became anti-gay in the last 100 years after contact with the west.

Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Islam before 1900s was fine with pedophilia and gay sex, so much so they made countless illustrations of men fucking each other.
I will not include pics, but you can easily find it online, under shit like "ottoman empire gay illustrations."

- In Islam the wife can work, earn her own money and keep it. Don't take it from me, listen to them say it:


View: https://youtu.be/JQaQo0du5h0


Humanity is martriarchial. We have an instinct to protect children so we keep reproducing.
We recognize kids by certian physical features which can be summed up under the term "neoteny."
Women, puppies, babies, kittens, anime characters etc share these features.
Hence they are regarded fondly.

I recently realized that it's not just walking around with a woman that makes you seem more trustworthy to strangers,
heck, even a puppy or kitten will do it.
Sometimes you even hear fathers talk about how they take their baby children out, because it attracts women.

So why would this be different in the past, or in another culture? Do humans not value their children in other cultures?
Does "the species" not prioritze it's own "survival" above all?
Again, if it is literally the human survival instinct that is tied to neoteny...
and neoteny is the cause of female worship, then why would it be different anywhere?
It is the strongest instinct there this.

Killing a neotenous creature is like comitting genocide on instinctual level to people.
Imagine the most valuable thing you have. Kill switch that instantly explodes your head, if you want.
You would tripple lock and seal that shit in 2 safes inside each other and then burry them 900km under the south pole.
That's what humans do with women.
This is why they can't fail. Humanity will not let them, because it mistakingly sees them as children, the key to the future, because women share traits with children.

And women deliberately enhance this bias by acting and looking more neotenous - make up, acting retarded and cute etc.
Do you see how it all connects? Look at my thread in must-read, "masculinity is a social construct" - Women are the only gender that deliberately undergoes huge pains to look more neotenous, while actively forcing the other gender to look less neotenous (scars on men, muscles, fighting).

Masculinity is down stream form female wants. Male behavior is based on female behavior:


– New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

143 KB file on MEGA

mega.nz

As always, this is all merely descriptive information. I am merely shining a light on stuff. How you deal with it, the prescriptive part, is up to you.


That's all.
Have a Good Day.

@WorthlessSlavicShit (informationcel)
@Cybersex is our hope (sexes me XD)
@pisswolf (funny name kek)
@NearEnd (here you go, I made another post)
@reveries (slav commando)

Explains a lot about modern society
Even in some cultures, a man will have to pay huge amounts in dowry just to marry a girl, if the girl is educated than the dowry increases tenfold
Being a man isnt valued. Look at how people reacts to dudes getting murdered vs cute animals being harmed

 

[reveries]

Also yeah people always being degenerates throughout the history is the funniest bit. It's funny how people nowadays love to portray past civilisations as "based" and "smart despite not having the technology and knowledge that we now have", all because of apex fallacy and not enough information on what a common pleb actually looked like back then.

 

[reveries]

Amazing reply, as always
Yeah, the Hipponax lore is funny af.
My favorite part is when he had oneitits for a guys daughter but when he asked for her hand in marriage, her father made fun of him.
So Hipponax went fucking ER and started talking mad trash, so mad in fact, that the dude fucking roped.

And this is just a snippet of history. Think about this, someone had to preserve the Hipponax lore. Some medieval monk sat in a chamber, quill and feather, copying Hipponax lore of people putting shit in their ass and stuff.

Also yeah, human nature has never changed at any point.
So many examples, it truly never ends:

Look at this lil'l thing, spreading its pussy for us awww so cute!

There are 124 of them on the walls of irish churches alone. Fesh eh?

Sheela na gig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's skip ancient sex toys (the early church literally told priests to ask ppl if they had them).


...

Mediaeval sexual behaviour

How during the Middle Ages the Church's demand for sexual abstinence made medieval Europe resemble a vast insane asylum (1954)

www.ourdecline.com

St. Augustine of Hippo even said that prostitution was a necessary evil to keep society stable. He lived in the 5th century AD.

Decameron Web | Society

This is a hole that is endless.
Another thing is medieval bath houses and prostitution. Men and women would bathe naked in these giant hot tubs and fuck and feast.
They had to ban them in cities because STD's were exploding through them.

Remember when Trump said "grab them by the pussy?"
Well, he might have actually been referencing this little tidbit of forgotten history:

Gropecunt Lane - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What about this lady and her public stunts:

Priss Fotheringham (née Priscilla Carsewell, c. 1615 – c. 1668)...

Priss Fotheringham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this:

Prostitution in early modern England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this old thread from our site (kinda long but good read, giga blackpill):

[JBpill] Teen and pre-teen prostitutes were common in New York during the 1800s

The book is City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920 by Timothy Gilfoyle. You can find it on LibGen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gilfoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis Chapter 3: "The Whorearchy", the best JBpill chapter...

incels.is

What about all the various christian cults and sects that early writers listed?
Take for instance, the Adamites.
They were medieval hippies who believed man should live like in eden, aka, run around naked and shit:

Adamites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Heresy in Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh no tradbros, I thought this shit was all "modern ideologies" and only came about wen da ebil Karl Marx and his bumbuddies "twisted everyones mind" and sheeeiett.

Various sects also were busy eating cum, feces and menstrual blood:

Borborites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sounds a lot like No-Fap and Semen retention niggas in our time. HARNESS THE POWA OF UR MAN JUECEEEE! NOT ONEE DRAWP SHALL GO TO WASTE!

Oh. They also played with aborted fetuses, sorry, I forgot that part ha ha whoops


Truly, nothing changes.
Nowadays that shit is used for beauty products.

You really have to giga blindfold yourself and not look at history for one fucking second to miss all this shit. It's all over the place, literally.
There is far less evidence for "traditionalism" than there is for the opposite. I remember reading Epictetus writings, and there is one part where a twink asks him something. And Epictetus roasts him for shaving his nuts and hes like, you look like a woman, go hang yourself.

Epictetus, Discourses, book 3

The fact alone that soys were around back then kek.
It is always the same shit. Trannies vs ancient Alex Jones and his Disciples.

This is apparently from the middle ages. Priests were instructed to ask plebs if they made dildos and pegged each other:

On Sex Toys and Penance | Medieval History

kekfuel tbh

but not as kekfuel as the second half:


YUM YUM TRAD CHUM
YES MUH MEDIEVAL TRAD WAIFU SERVING ME VA-JAY-JAY FISH YUMMMMM

I have seen this IRL btw.
When you trap people in positions of inferiority, they will look for subtle ways to take revenge i.e. spit in your food, put boogers in your spaghetti etc.

My mom deliberately didn't wash her hands after shitting and then served us food and shit. One time my sister grabbed some food and my mom took it and said NO thats the bad piece, thats for your dad! - I don't even want to know.

A more crass result of this stuff was that tons of women would just poison their husbands, 100s of them.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFmT2ChU8pE


It just keeps going, this shit is like pandoras box. There is so much content. Suffice to say, our time is not more degen than the past.
Oh, I did not even get into women putting drugs in their pussy in the renaissance and getting "high" aka "witch flights."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/intravaginal-administration

Anecdotally - in my sisters school girls would soak tampons in alcohol and then put in their pussy. It apparently works.

https://digital.library.txst.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f50cc44f-a619-4949-a17f-397fd11b9e09/content

OHHH SHIEEET GANGBANG IN THE HAMLET YEEE SCOOT SCOOT THEY ON DAT WITCH SHIT
pussy pasty was probably the fentanyl of the middle ages ngl ded srs

Witch hunts = war against drugs theoy
They were burning drug dealers.

This is getting too long, it's just too much. I can't. Sorry, jfl. If anybody claims we are more degenerate than people putting fish in their pussy and making DIY dildos from oiled horse leather, they have lost the plot.
Thx for your reply bro, I fuk wit da love

Tradcucks be like "ya dawg we need to go back to le based times bro"

 

[Gokubro]

Water

 

[GeckoBus]

Also makes me wonder, does this mean only neotenous things can be truly unconditionally loved? Does the love a masculine chad receives differs from the one a prettyboy chad gets?

I mean this is a highly philosophical question, on what love is and how to justify it. As long as it is tied to any condition like "[beauty]" or whatever, it is conditional of course. If the condition can be taken away within your lifetime, like in the case of male beauty, you are fucked.
For women, the criteria that determines how they are treated never goes away as long as they live, because it is [gender = female] basically.

I don't think most people think on this level about "love" though. For most people love is just desire, infatuation, maybe part of their identity etc. But they can't justify any form of objective concept of universal love. I feel like that's something that you would have to acquire through effort, like a monk for something, suspending judgement of things for decades and "rejecting the world," if you get me.

Like with a lot of things, people assume words always have the same and obvious meanings. "Love" is such a word. This is called word-concept fallacy. Words are just referents for concepts. I say, "I love Aristotle, great guy!" and you say "Wow, me too!"
But I am talking about Aristotle, the restaurant owner down the street, while you refer to the philosopher.

With "love" the same thing happens. You can ask people "what is love?" and they will not be able to answer without falling into the munchhausen trilemma (? - not sure what it is called tbh). Basically they will give you
a) another unsubstantiated claim, i.e. "love is a feeling," which begs the question of why that is and how they know
b) from there it usually slips into fideism, like "it just is" or
c) circular reasoning aka shit like "love is love," - this is what I meant by people assume concepts are just obvious and universally true.

If we take for example the christian concept of love, it has zero conceptual overlap with the popular modern concept.
Even normies do not use the word with the same meaning.
"Let's make love!" = sex.
But when they say they love their kids, do they imply they are fucking them?
Or when they say, "I love this band!," do they want to fuck the band?

Sometimes the word love is used to refer to completely other concepts, i.e. someone concepts under a video of a criminal being tased "I love when people get what they deserve!" In this case it just means, "I like when things happen that I like!"

This problem plagues historical studies.
Take for instance the word "God."
In our time, we all share a concept of "god" which is very heavily influenced by western christian culture.
But in the ancient world, this was not the case. The bible itself used the word "god" in tons of different ways, which do not refer to the actual Christian God.

Ancient christian writers would also use the word god for different concepts interchangeably, just like we do with "love."
However, because historians lack philosophical training, they spread misinformation based on the modern concept of the word.
For instance, they tell us that the ancient Egyptians and other cultures thought the sun was "god."
This is not true.

Just like in Christians believe that God is 3 in 1, three "instantiations" in one person, the ancient Egyptians believed the sun was merely an instantiation of God. They did not literally believe the sun to be God. But this is highly philosophical and way beyond most historians, which have zero knowledge of philosophical jargon common in the ancient world.
They just end up projecting modern concepts of the world onto the past.

Same goes for how they claim the Romans thought their emperor to be a god. This was not the case. The emperor died in battle or got poisoned all the time. People were not retarded. The word "god" in his instance can just be a sort of high praise, like someone in our time might say "Jared Leto is God!" in an exclamation of how much they love Jared Leto.

Or take the mostly misrepresented idea that people thought their King was elected by God. This makes no sense from our perspective because we assume a modern worldview. We are taught that we all are the same, that we have up- and downward mobility in society and that we are all individuals with mind-bending powers to change reality (narcissism). But for most of history, people were blackpilled on the subject of social hierarchy.

Just like we incels might say that your looks are not in your control, and thus your social mobility is pre-determined and your ability to go down and up in status limited, people in the past thought the King was simply put where he is by God.
It is a sort of deterministic view of life, very similar to our blackpill outlook on life.
Does it matter if you say, the King is King because he lucked out and was born in that position, or if you say, the King was put there by God?
Either way, the state of affairs can not be changed and you just gotta deal with it.

So going back to the start, if you want to have a real concept of "love," you have to ground it somewhere, define it and justify why it is universally true. This is extremely philosophical. Personally, all of this goes way over my head, I can just parrot what others have said on a low level. I will put some of my sources for this stuff here.

1. At timestamp 1:53:27 he talks about the Egyptian sun-god example I gave:


View: https://youtu.be/TALg8NWE6S4?t=6807


2. In this debate, the topic of the word "god" came up. This comes up in christian Apologetics all the time because bad debaters assume everyone in the past referred to the same concept of "god." Especially Catholics apparently.

At 13:17 Jay makes the point I mentioned:


View: https://youtu.be/pzv-hPzPYYI?t=797


Jay bases his claim on this paper:

Theistic fallacies

Drawing on medieval and modern epistemic logic the article argues that the popular theistic argument is wrong which assumes that if certain religions are "monotheistic" then there is a "greatest common denominator" for these

www.academia.edu

3. In this PDF is the thing that I mentioned about the roman emperor and the word "god:"

Almost all terms in theology are anachronistic. The Romans held that “gods” ruled the
earth in the same sense that the law of gravity rules downward velocity. Jupiter defined and
symbolized the office of the emperor and was not a being in his own right. There are still history
professors claiming that Romans thought the emperor “a god.” Did anyone not notice that he
died? That me made errors? Did anyone notice that he could be easily overthrown? Are we to
believe that the leadership of the Roman empire, its Senate and local nobles, were incapable of
noticing these things? Obviously, the term “divine” is not used in the same way St. Paul uses the
term. So how is it being used?

https://theorthodoxnationalist.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/pagan.pdf

Feminism just makes up the notion of past oppression to excuse and justify their present psychopathy.

This is true.
This is also a big subject. When you read up on propaganda, people like Edward Bernays and other "grandfathers" of modern public relations always say that propaganda can not create new feelings or instincts in people. It can only throw oil or water on the little fires already burning in all of us. So with feminism, they just kindled the flames of what was already in women - this weird latent anti-male bias all of them have + their strong in-group preferences.

They gave them excuses for their already existing instinctual dislike of men in general, which all humans have. Most instances of justice porn you can find online are merely excuses to take jabs at ugly men. Be it police footage, pedo-hunters, war footage. If you go to the comment sections on videos about this, people coom themselves over men being abused. However, the same videos with women being arrested, people defend them.

One example I gave in a thread is of this young, good looking guy, who was arrested by pedo-hunters. However, since he is not an ugly man, people in the comments visciously defend him, saying he is hot, has a big dick, should be let go, that the girl was not even that young etc. Insanity. You can see my thread here:

Normies Support Pedophiles if they are good Looking (Case Example)

Case Example (video) Read the comments. The majority are saying he's too good looking to be evil. Many are also making the exact same excuses they excuse pedophile of making: - maybe she looked older than she is - how old is 15 really - its fine if the guy is good looking or young enough -...

incels.is

Make sure to read the screenshots.
This indicates that it is not pedophilia that is the issue. It is looks. When the aggressor is good looking, his behavior is excusable.
Age does not exist outside of visually looking old or young. If you look 15 but you are a 900 year old vampire, people would be ok with you fucking JB's.

This is extremely ironic, because it is precisely these types of arguments that normies attack men for when it comes to anime - "she may look like a hot teenager, but in the lore she is a 300 year old archmage." Yet in reality, this is how THEY operate, not just weebs.
Like I said, people actively look for excuses to abuse ugly men. The disgust and hatred is already there, boiling under the surface.

Remember the word-concept thing? The concept is not inherent in the word right? The concept is invisible, wordless, suspended in nothing until you attach a label or symbol to it. Well, this is what this is.

The dislike of ugly men is always there, silently. But the moment people can pin a label to it, i.e. "pedo," "creep," "incel," they can manifest their feelings into a concrete object to beat the shit out of. It is like conjuring a demon so you can capture and abuse it - a whipping boy.
(Whipping boys were boys that would be punished instead of noble boys, as stand-ins).

Reality is not obvious, just like "love" is not obvious. People look at the behavior of an ugly person, which can be identical to a woman's behavior, but it will be perceived completely differently. So, if the behavior is identical, how do they arrive at different conclusions? Because interpretation of reality happens in the mind first, based on presuppositions and pre-existing biases (In philosophy this topic is called "the myth of the given," or "the myth of obviousness").

I want to share another video clip here to show that femminism is indeed a hate movement (great channel btw, I mentioned it before but this guy links all his sources):


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tVzgUkKIA


In this video he presents rearch showing that men are victims of IPV (inter-personal violence) just as much and even MORE than women. Yet, 90% of the help goes to women, and this is the crucial part: Women actively campaign to destroy male support systems.

Also yeah people always being degenerates throughout the history is the funniest bit. It's funny how people nowadays love to portray past civilisations as "based" and "smart despite not having the technology and knowledge that we now have", all because of apex fallacy and not enough information on what a common pleb actually looked like back then.

100%. This can not be said enough. Selective bias, availability cascade, apex fallacy, just world fallacy, fundamental attribution error and other stuff - all of this incredibly disorts peoples view of the past, our time and also what the future will be.

For instance, how do we know our time is especially degenerate? How do we know we are slipping into something worse than the past? In order to know this, we would have to have full access to how "degenerate" the past was and then somehow measure it. Impossible.
However, our time always seems more important because we are looking it from a closer perspective. This disorts the impact current events have and makes them seem waaaaaay more important than they are in the long-term of history.

Another thing is availability cascades. Basically, when some claim is reported on a lot, people assume it must have high priority. Simply by being in circulation, something gains weight in peoples minds. This is also related to the mere-exposure effect. Merely being exposed to something more than something else, people will like that thing in question more.

Keep this in mind when you see right wingers rage about trannies, male testosterone levels and sperm levels and all these other topics - how do you know these topics are even relevant? Based on what? How do you measure how relevant a topic is? What the future impact will be?
Think of all the 1000s of world changing events going on right now. And then think about how many people talk about at any given time.
1000s of events:

- US is fighting proxy wars in africa

Behind the secret U.S. war in Africa

Despite Pentagon assertions, secret programs allow American troops to direct combat raids in Somalia, Kenya, Niger and other African nations.

www.politico.com

- US court just admitted that Covid vaxxes are not vaccines but just "treatments" that weren't even tested:

http://mileswmathis.com/ninth.pdf

https://mileswmathis.com/redfield2.pdf

Not a pip from the media or normies.
People only care about what they are told to care about. This is the most shocking thing to me, that you can make people emotionally CARE about shit, just by telling them.

On the subject of tesosterone, I would recommend this read:

1.68 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Some highlights:
- connection between sex-drive and tesosterone, errection quality is not established
- testosterone does not improve mood in all people

Right wingers and tradcopers are always busy finding new ways to make men insecure and destroy themselves.
In this they often contradict themselves.
For example they claim men are all low-t soys now, but then they also claim men are too horny and watch too much porn and simp too much.

Based on their model of testosterone - aka that it makes you mentally stable and horny, this makes no sense.
You can't be a low testosterone man with no sex drive but also be a porn addicted ghoul who cant stop obsessing over pussy at the same time.
I highly suspect the medical industry is behind this to sell men supplements and testosterone treatments.

Going back to the availability cascade thing - again, why does the tranny shit matter? How important is this on a scale of 1-100? Remember munchhausens trilemma from earlier?

Every argument they make will come down to
a) question begging
b) fideism
c) circular reasoning

Just ask them, why does it matter? And keep asking. Ask them how they know it matters.
They always do the same shit and resort to petty insults (ad hominem).
"So you support trannies abusing kids?!" - not what I said, don't dodge.
"So you are saying child abuse is fine?!?!?!" - nope, also not what I said
"So are saying you dont care if kids are abuased?!" - Well, the onus of proving why it matters is on you, not me.

It is hilarious to me how these right wingers claim 24/7 the media is not trustworthy, but then trust the media when it comes to reports on trannies. What if trannies are just a psy-op by the government to distract from more important issues?
When it benefits them, the media is trustworthy, and when not, it is not. Confirmation bias.

Another example of a seemingly retarded question that nobody asked that I came across is this: Does pollution exist?
As it turns out, it's not an obvious answer.
For instance, we encounter a lookism issue here.
People assume plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags. But this is not true.
If you read this scientists page (free ebook):

Home - Plastics Paradox By Chris DeArmitt

plasticsparadox.com

He lays out with 100s of studies that plastic is in fact more economically friendly than paper.
But the difference is that plastic bags are ugly. He points out that people have no issue with plastic, as long as it is made to look like wood.
Also, he shows research on microplastics in the pacific, there is basically zero there. Like literally. It is like 1 mycrometre piece of plastic in an area of water the size of an olympic swimming pool.

So why does nobody question the plastic-pollution narrative?
Because everyone profits from it. All sides.
Right wingers use it to shame men, make you feel insecure about your body and testosterone levels, sell you supplements, make dooms-day predictions about the world and shame other men by calling them soys.

The left uses it to push climate change policies, veganism, radical environmental policies, shame people for "destroying the planet" and all that good stuff.

Keep this in mind, this is important. When opposing parties talk about things, find common points between their claims. Like, underlying, foundational assumptions NEITHER side is questioning - then question those. In my example, both sides just assume that plastics are harmful. Neither even bothers providing proof for this. It is just assumed.

Same for when women claim to be afraid of men in public or at night, or when people talk about pedophiles - always as if they are only men. Meanwhile women are equal to more likely of being pedophiles. People just assume there are disproportionally more male pedophiles for no reason.

They also assume men are more physically violent than women, when this does not come out in some data. IPV data shows (see video above) that women are as physically violent as men in relationships. This again goes contra the right wing claim that men are "more physical" and women use "muh 5d chess emotional manipulation because they are weak and non confrontational" - both genders beat the shit out of each other. There is no difference in physical aggression.

This also obliterates trad-gender role claims like "labor was physical and hard in the past, so women had to stay home" - the data on greenpill.net shows that even in labor intensive fields like agriculture, there were huge numbers of women working.

Again we find ourselves in the realms of philosophy. A classic saying here is that "a theory that proves everything, proves nothing."
People always reduce every issue to some singular thing. In reality, everything is systems with factors interacting in complex ways.

https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

In our case, most incels reduce the looks issue to gender. But as I pointed out with neoteny, it goes way beyond that. It affects how we see history, ourselves, education outcomes (boys get downgraded by teachers) and much much more. It also overlaps with health issues - facially rececessed women may BENEFIT from what would make a man ugly, because it makes them more neotenous.

So unhealthy women may have a higher chance of reproducing, despite what people even here claim somtimes, aka that if we just let chad impregnate all the foids, we would live in utopia of chads and stacies.

Everything connects with everything.

Tradcucks be like "ya dawg we need to go back to le based times bro"

muh based patriarchy - just beleive in feminist propaganda to fight back at them kek.
This is a perfect example of confirmation bias btw.

Nobody questions on both sides questions the concept of "patriarchy" - they just assume it existed/exists. Nobody has ever provided evidence for it. Also, as I said, the concept and term "patriarchy" is a feminist invention. So why are right wingers using it?
Because people don't question what benefits them - fundamental attribution error, selfishness bias, BLASY BLAY YOU GET IT, jeez i am waffling arent I?

But yeah, patriarchy = me strong man, me fugg da woman, ooga booga, I am in charge = excuse to serve women while larping you are not obsessed with female validation (an obession that probably comes from mommy worship instillied in childhood).

So they never question if patriarchy is even a thing, cuz they like the idea simply put. It fits their distorted self image of being a strong, independent man who "doesnt take shit" etc. In reality they just want to serve foids, like the rest of us obsessively posting and discussing foids online, like me on this forum.

Ok im gonna stop here kek. Sorry for long post, I get lost.

 

[sultryloser]

Oh shit. This thread is blowing my mind. I just keep learning more about history and it changes your perspective truly.

This is why they can't fail. Humanity will not let them, because it mistakingly sees them as children, the key to the future, because women share traits with children.

There's evidence that shows that adult women might actually be more valuable than children of either sex. See the 1912 Titanic survival records, it's brutal. "Women and children first!" More like women then children and... men, meh, get comfortable with lungfuls of icy water.

I think your supposition that neotony is valuable is true, but it's a subset of the female form, the most valuable shape known to man, because of man. If a woman's frontal bone develops like a man during puberty, it makes her look like a man and heavily affects her facial attractiveness because she will be mistaken for a man. Female sexual dimorphism in the face is truthfully the absence of male sexual dimorphism, that is that women's adult skulls resemble their pre-pubertal skulls.

Neotony is attractive because in humans it suggests neuroplasticity and thus malleability, like how children are malleable. This is not my conjecture, I read it from a blog of a professor of anthropology (I would add the hyperlink, but I can't find it in my browser history).

 

[sultryloser]

This is just another example of female in-group bias of course. Great thread

That biological preference humankind has for femininity is so BRUTAL by the way. I remember Alicia and Alex, 1994, put the in-group bias strength for women at 4 times for women and men's out-group preference for women at 1.7 times. Nobody likes men! How can men enjoy living in a suppressive society as second class humans? More and more you start to realize that MGTOW or dropping out of society is the closest thing to a solution there is.

It's no place for man on this earth!

 

[GeckoBus]

That biological preference humankind has for femininity is so BRUTAL by the way. I remember Alicia and Alex, 1994, put the in-group bias strength for women at 4 times for women and men's out-group preference for women at 1.7 times. Nobody likes men! How can men enjoy living in a suppressive society as second class humans? More and more you start to realize that MGTOW or dropping out of society is the closest thing to a solution there is.

It's no place for man on this earth!

There is also this more recent one from 2004 which put the number at 4.5 times higher in-group bias for women.

https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

We have many other examples of female in-group bias and also that women are a more homogeneous group than men. Of course the amount of data gets even bigger when we include general pro-female biases like women are wonderful effect and so on.
Here is some stuff:

1. Women react more strongly to trash talk aimed at women than men:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13684302221125182

2. Girls are more aggressive towards boys than girls (thx @WorthlessSlavicShit )

Girls are more likely to target the opposite sex with aggression than boys

Abstract from the paper: Direct and indirect aggressive behaviors were studied using surveys and interviews of students in two public schools. The variables of “sex-of-aggressor” and “sex-of-target” were included. Claims in previous research that girls engage in far more indirect aggression than...

incels.is

3. Girls pick and reject partners collectively:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/


4. Women make the majority of customer purchases, even in the 1930s:

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

Research Guides: Consumer Advertising During the Great Depression: A Resource Guide: Gender and Advertising

This guide explores primary and secondary sources that examine the advertising industry from 1929 to 1933, including advertising agencies, consumer protection groups, and topical sources on gender, race, and radio in advertising.

guides.loc.gov

This implies that markets cater to women, which in turn implies that women are reliable customers since their behavior is predictable collectively. So much for men being "consooomer" - it is women that by far are the biggest spenders.

5. Even in video games women show in-group bias, men simp, women come out on top:

This paper had both genders play a video role playing game for resources. Women expressed greater in-group bias, took less risks and yet ended up with most of the resources. This reflects point 4, women control the resource and attention economy at the expense of men, aka, society is build on male exploitation.

How women organize social networks different from men - Scientific Reports

Superpositions of social networks, such as communication, friendship, or trade networks, are called multiplex networks, forming the structural backbone of human societies. Novel datasets now allow quantification and exploration of multiplex networks. Here we study gender-specific differences of...

www.nature.com

6. Some IQ research suggests that there are more extremes when it comes to men, aka more men with extremely high and low IQ, whereas women are more similar to each other:

Variability hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Overall, I think the case for female in-group bias can easily made like this. As a man, you are fucked. Can't outmaneuver this behemoth. No amount of money, gymmaxxing or surgery will make you capable of overcoming 50% of society forming a united front against you.

Oh shit. This thread is blowing my mind. I just keep learning more about history and it changes your perspective truly.


There's evidence that shows that adult women might actually be more valuable than children of either sex. See the 1912 Titanic survival records, it's brutal. "Women and children first!" More like women then children and... men, meh, get comfortable with lungfuls of icy water.

I think your supposition that neotony is valuable is true, but it's a subset of the female form, the most valuable shape known to man, because of man. If a woman's frontal bone develops like a man during puberty, it makes her look like a man and heavily affects her facial attractiveness because she will be mistaken for a man. Female sexual dimorphism in the face is truthfully the absence of male sexual dimorphism, that is that women's adult skulls resemble their pre-pubertal skulls.

View attachment 1207662

Neotony is attractive because in humans it suggests neuroplasticity and thus malleability, like how children are malleable. This is not my conjecture, I read it from a blog of a professor of anthropology (I would add the hyperlink, but I can't find it in my browser history).

Yes, anecdotally, people actually give less of a shit about kids than women. That is true. I have no data on that just yet, but I have heard others in our spheres echo the same thing from experience.

 

[sultryloser]

Yes, anecdotally, people actually give less of a shit about kids than women. That is true. I have no data on that just yet, but I have heard others in our spheres echo the same thing from experience.

I think it might be because women, while they are young, can always make more kids. We know about how high the infant mortality rate has been throughout history. One adult and prime-aged (basically the moment she starts puberty) woman can birth tens of kids before she has complications and dies in childbirth or reaches menopause.

You're a peasant and father in 13th-century Germany and a huge famine has washed the country. There's not enough food for all five of your family of your wife, yourself and your three infant kids.
Should you:

1. Send away your wife as the portion of food to feed her may feed all three infants; or
2. Send away your children, leave them in a forest somewhere. Surviving the famine you will generate more progeny with the means of your wife's pussy

Well, that has happened before and you might know that's where the fairy-tale of Handsle and Grettle originated. Parents unable to feed all their kids would leave them to fend for themselves. After all, with your wife, you have the means to make more. As crazy as it sounds, there's scant evidence for it, but the reasoning is strong, young adult women (say from age 16) are more valuable than children, even children who themselves are female.

 

[GeckoBus]

I think it might be because women, while they are young, can always make more kids. We know about how high the infant mortality rate has been throughout history. One adult and prime-aged (basically the moment she starts puberty) woman can birth tens of kids before she has complications and dies in childbirth or reaches menopause.

You're a peasant and father in 13th-century Germany and a huge famine has washed the country. There's not enough food for all five of your family of your wife, yourself and your three infant kids.
Should you:

1. Send away your wife as the portion of food to feed her may feed all three infants; or
2. Send away your children, leave them in a forest somewhere. Surviving the famine you will generate more progeny with the means of your wife's pussy

Well, that has happened before and you might know that's where the fairy-tale of Handsle and Grettle originated. Parents unable to feed all their kids would leave them to fend for themselves. After all, with your wife, you have the means to make more. As crazy as it sounds, there's scant evidence for it, but the reasoning is strong, young adult women (say from age 16) are more valuable than children, even children who themselves are female.

I actually have thought exactly the same thing!
If you read my "psychopathy" thread in must-read, I talked about the history of infanticide.
What you describe is known in research as "death by exposure" as in "exposure to the elements" - this was a common kill method for unwanted children globally.

Since this is so well documented, I think the Hänsel and Gretel thing is 100% true. Also note something else about the story: The father does not make the choice. The wife tells him to kill the kids. The father does it reluctantly.
And who abuses the children? An old witch, she tries to eat them after luring them in.
Also, the old woman/witch is rich -> women control wealth (men die earlier = old women inherit wealth).

Finally, do you recall when the kids come back? What does it say? The old wife is dead. And the dad has a new wife and rejoices in having his kids back. Blackpilled as fuck.

So I don't think the evidence is that scant:

Unwanted infants were usually abandoned to die of exposure, but in some societies they were deliberately killed.

Infanticide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The roots of infanticide run deep, and begin with poverty | Aeon Essays

There is nothing so horrific as child murder, yet it’s ubiquitous in human history. What drives a parent to kill a baby?

aeon.co

 

[SmhChan]

So with feminism, they just kindled the flames of what was already in women - this weird latent anti-male bias all of them have + their strong in-group preferences.

It's been ingrained in my brain so deeply, yet every time I read it, it never fails to break my heart again.

 

[SmhChan]

Yes, anecdotally, people actually give less of a shit about kids than women. That is true. I have no data on that just yet, but I have heard others in our spheres echo the same thing from experience.

It's the neoteny and male sex drive, though.

Also, @sultryloser overstates the case. In the modern times with our life-expectancy, foids being "more" valuable is just an excuse to keep up the status quo of them being first-class citizens. Look at China and India, billions with worse gender ratios.

If men only really valued foids for their reproductive values, a lot more foids than men would be living in destitute in the current times. Only when a foid is all wrinkly and 60, they start to feel the coldness of men. A young boy hardly appreciates his loving grandmother. How else would you explain men's fantasy of being babied by "le mature" milfs, past their prime age of reproduction, even though men are generally treated well by the grandmas out of all types of foids?

 

[manletcel1488]

High IQ post and you raise a lot of good points about how human nature has been the same throughout most of history, but I still have a hard time accepting that it was just as bad as it is now.
Just look at the baby boomers and gen x, most of the people who were in relationships during that era would have been incels by today's standards. Most of us have grandfathers and great grandfathers that would be incels if they were in our shoes.
It's true that women enjoyed an abundance of privileges before "female suffrage" but I would still argue that it was better for men back then since men were still seen as being the primary providers, at least we were given a role and were valued by society, yes women could and did exploit a lot of men this way but men were still valued more than now, and women would have still been shamed for acting whorish like they do today.
Many of the cases you brought up were anecdotal, it proves that degenerate stuff always happened but it doesn't prove how common it was. You are right that prostitution was always extremely common. While there were 1 in 5 prostitutes in London at one point in history I would argue that at least 1 in 5 women (especially if you are only counting the ones under 30)in the entire west are probably prostitutes today if you include stuff like Onlyfans, which I do, it's also way easier for women to be online prostitutes than real life ones, and many of them make more money than they would being an escort, men obviously also get less out of online prostitutions than they do from hiring an escort, women are getting rewarded exponentially more than they did in the past for significantly less work. You say that prostitution was tolerated during the middle ages because St. Augustine stated that the church allowed it to exist and considered it a necessary evil... but isn't that worlds better than what we have now? Today it is not seen as a necessary evil but a universal GOOD that needs to be promoted as much as possible, teenagers are selling pictures of their butthole before they even finish high-school, that is something uniquely evil to our time. How degenerate society will be depends on which part of the world you are talking about and at what time period, I'm currently of the belief that the more degenerate a culture becomes the more likely it is to collapse which was the case with Rome and the Ottomans, but you are of course right that degeneracy (especially homosexuality as you pointed out) has been a big problem for humanity for most of history.
Yes women always worked, it was still men that made up the primary workforce, even if women were hired in labor intensive fields it doesn't mean they were doing the same type of work men were doing and it certainly didn't mean they were any good at it if they did. Society needs men to do the work, always has and always will unless AI actually manages to become super advanced or something. I think anyone arguing that all women until women's suffrage came about literally sat home all day and cooked, cleaned, and waited for the man to get home are seriously lacking in IQ.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with alimony either... it makes sense why it is one of the first laws to ever get made, if you bring life into this world you should have to support it. The problem is obviously when women abuse the system to exploit men for their own gain instead of taking care of the child. And of course it should be encouraged for the male and female who bore a child together to stay together and raise the child as a unit, and not have the male live separately and just pay money to the female. Alimony before a separation is based and makes sense, if the male or female tries to break the union they forged by bringing life into the world that should be a shameful thing.
The adamites thing is interesting but is mostly a nothingburger and not really comparable to the horrors of Marxism, who cares what an isolated group of a few hundred people wanted to do back in the day? That's not really comparable to the horrors of Marxist theory today, which was powerful enough to become the primary ideology of entire countries.

These are just some of my thoughts on what you have said, obviously I cannot respond to everything because you have posted a lot of information, ultimately I think you are right in a lot of ways but I also think you are cherry-picking a bit to dab on tradcopers.
I am critical of both the past and the present and hope one day we can live in a more enlightened time, so I do appreciate your post and I learned a lot from what you have laid out.