The Orwellian new world order will be a feminist dystopia. The reason is because women are more easily manipulated, socially controlled, and conditioned.
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Women have two primary goals: secure their place in society and secure a proper mate. Both are interrelated, though the former depends entirely on the type of society in which she resides. Women can’t lone wolf. If they have to, something went god-awfully wrong. Thus, they aim to fit within their society so as to not be ostracized, and then seek a man within that society as mate.
The second goal influences the first to the point that I can’t say anything about the former without the latter. Women like things they can’t get. so they usually act like whiny bitches and demand things not to get them, but to get told they can’t get them. There’s a proper logical reason as to why so many weak people complain that women keep friend-zoning them and going for assholes, and that reason is that the woman they were after saw that they were weak and discarded them as potential mates. What’s the mate selection process? It’s the woman’s instincts saying, “If you can control him, he’s too weak for you,” as if she was the guardian at the gate giving you the challenge that you have to beat her in order to pass. This ties in with why women paradoxically go for people that keep them in line or don’t care about them.
That aside, this is the main issue with women nowadays. They’re a symptom. They’re the canary in the coal mine. The coal mine is society. Women adapt to what they see as the society to prevent ostracism, as their instincts dictate. However, that society tells them to conform to certain norms that conflict with their instincts to find a mate. This society, that tells them to be a “strong independent woman that doesn’t need a man,” is fully against their nature. But they adapt, because it’s in their nature to follow, not to lead. What happens? They turn into feminists or sluts or some other category that causes only weak bitchmen to follow them, while proper mate material strays as far away as possible from them. Unhappiness universally follows as they keep trying to find a mate yet fail, never stopping–because they can’t go against their instincts–until they die alone with fifty cats and a history of six million sexual partners.
It doesn’t stop there. They are given power now, and with that power they carry out their instincts. A woman in power without proper handling will do to that which she’d do to a man: whine, demand, act like a stuck up bitch, and so on. Now, however, the law is in her favor and nobody will be able to do anything about it.
Let’s take the hypothetical scenario that a woman in power is causing the European invasion by non-whites. Again, hypothetical; we’re pretending jews aren’t involved. What would that mean? It doesn’t mean that the woman wants to destroy Europe. It means she wants you to put her in her place and eliminate the issues she’s causing, because that would mean you’re stronger than her and, by extension, would be able to protect her if a threat appears. Of course, the European situation is anything but this, this is made up for simplicity’s sake.
Hate them if you must, but never fall into the assumption that women are the same as men. Do not hold them to the same standards and do not use the same logic with them. Learn how to treat them and you’ll get someone who’ll madly want to bear your children. Traditional societies that encouraged manliness in men and proper values in women gave this to most women since the start, and when society changes, they adapt for better or worse.
The usual suspects know about these weaknesses in women’s nature. It’s no coincidence that women were given the vote by a certain group of happy merchants. They’re being manipulated. It’s also no coincidence that a great majority of feminists always have rape, male aggressiveness, and sexuality in their heads 24/7 like a fantasy, and that even some of them hold BDSM fetishes. The patriarchy against which they’re always raging? Consider that they’re surrounded by massive beta fucks that would kiss their shoes and you’ll get a clue of what they actually want. This idea of overpowering strength being what they want also ties in with Stockholm Syndrome.
“Privilege” means that in the culture each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, the ways you benefit from them, or that others don’t have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e, the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient–which was actually an obligation men compiled with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men, too.” What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them “rights” that women can choose–or not–as they see fit.
It–with the help of “advancements" like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life and provide her husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while still keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
As women are released from their obligations (to men and society) without giving up corresponding entitlements, things are becoming unbalanced. The system which was once equitable to both genders–which afforded entitlements to offset obligations–is gone, removing obligation from one member and placing them all on the other. A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc.), but now men have been kicked out of their own houses, figuratively and literally. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as a right rather than an obligation–and because they owe nothing to anyone other than their personal fulfillment, they’re paying the economic, social, and political cost. Well, men are paying that, but it affects women’s happiness, too.
Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract. When they took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, women soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social and legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support, and protection–or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit.” They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down, and the cut is taken mostly from men. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed it. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up.” Men have always either provided for women and children or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in and get even less out. Let me put it another way. Women make up about 60^ of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train them because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo; this generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in medical school are finite, because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school, due to affirmative action.
But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their careers at an obligation and expected to be working 50-70 hours a week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
The female doctor has taken out of society more than she has put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, but also pick up the slack. We all pay–with our tax revenue and by having to wait to see a doctor–but her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer male ones will have to take on even more burden to ensure that people can get an appointment.
Though women have made inroads into male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful way, because–get this–it sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men. You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have–and have always had–female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression for them.
There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to them. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in the role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive in their own lives–that only men can provide–all the while whining that purses are oppressive?
Ironically, MGTOW have the exact same beliefs you just ranted about in your two posts.
Perhaps you should give it another look, because male feminism is completely off the mark.
Essentially, MGTOW is men that have been shafted by, or seen other men shafted by, society. In response, they are boycotting society.
Would you get married? I know I wouldn't, because marriage is a contract of slavery for a man in our society. In that way, many aspects of society are contracts of slavery, such as getting into debt.
MGTOWs have seen the truth of society: that every promise and smile hides a snakes fangs. The only way to win is to not play.
Perhaps you would like to fight for this society, but I wouldn't. I'd rather let it crumble, to allow people to see where they failed. If you white knight for this society and save it, you reinforce their belief that what they are doing is okay, because it worked out in the end.
No need to label yourself a MGTOW though, even though you share almost their exact thoughts. I sometimes label myself one just to piss societal white knights off, but in reality, I don't consider myself any label, because once you label yourself something, you pigeonhole yourself into conforming.
I suppose you would rather sacrifice yourself for a society that threw you away?
Personally, I have intention to be a martyr. I'll let you have that glory, and when you're gone, I'll be sure to double my enjoyment of my life to make up for you.
It's quite ironic that you would view women in such a way, then turn around and white knight for the society that put us in this position to begin with.
I suppose understanding one doesn't allow you to understand both.
As for boycotting being counterproductive, retarded and cowardly...if a business poisoned its products, would you consider boycotting them to be counterproductive, retarded and cowardly?
This society is a poison, as you so elegantly put it with the canary in the coalmine analogy. I'll boycott the shit out of it all day every day.
You seem to believe that you can change society and the people with wisdom, knowledge and truth. As you will eventually find out as you get older, life doesn't work that way. People hate to be told the horrible truth, instead preferring the comforting lie. History shows that those who speak the truth to try and spark change are hated not only by those in power, but by the very people they seek to save. Shooting the messenger, if you will.
Also, you seem very angry for some reason. You shouldn't let your emotions get so charged up; it's very feminine.
I suppose you would rather sacrifice yourself for a society that threw you away?
I’d sacrifice myself to rebuild my society.
Personally, I have intention to be a martyr. I’ll let you have that glory, and when you're gone, I'll be sure to double my enjoyment of my life to make up for you.
You’re an r-selected milquetoast and you will roast alongside those being punished.
turn around and white knight for the society
Not happening.
As for boycotting being counterproductive, retarded and cowardly...if a business poisoned its products, would you consider boycotting them to be counterproductive, retarded and cowardly?
People aren’t products. Your analogy is bullshit.
This society is a poison
The cure is not to let the poison “run its course”. It’s to amputate the gangrenous limbs.
You seem to believe that you can change society and the people with wisdom, knowledge and truth. As you will eventually find out as you get older, life doesn’t work that way.
Wow, you’re stupid.
People hate to be told the horrible truth, instead preferring the comforting lie.
So you punch them in the face with the truth until they relent or are dead. You don’t act like a fucking coward and run away.
Also, you seem very angry for some reason. You shouldn’t let your emotions get so charged up; it's very feminine.
Cute, but retarded.
The first reaction to truth is hatred.
– Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. – Thomas Jefferson
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society. – Aristotle
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right ways is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. – Margaret Chase Smith
These are people history has remembered. You will be forgotten so completely that the only mention of you will be collectively as “retards who gave up all their ancestors had wrought and got what they deserved because of it.”
Stick to your username; you don’t have anything true to say, anyway.
You can go ahead and become the martyr, trying to save this society.
But damn man, such anger and you even said this to a woman:
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Ouch, hypocrisy.
As for my analogy, it was spot on and you know it. People are viewed as resources/products by those in power. You just knew you were bested, so you dodged the point.
Finally, those quotes are supposed to apply to me, but hilariously, they apply even more to you.
You're filled with hatred from the truth of my words.
You're the ignorant one, thinking that white knighting for this society will save it.
You're the tolerant one for tolerating this society's disease ridden core as you attempt to save it.
You are the coward for being afraid to let this society meet the end it needs and deserves, so that those who fueled it and stood up for it can truly see how and why it failed.
I know my username gets a lot of love from commentators like you; the truth is hard to hear, bringing fear and anger, which you have displayed oh so much of during our conversation.
Well, friend, it was fun but I only have so many fucks to give about this society, people's opinions and you in particular, and I'm already runnin on fumes here.
Maybe next time we have some discourse, you'll have a better understanding of why your path is not desired by those who truly wish for a better world, but I won't be betting on it.
As for my analogy, it was spot on and you know it.
Nope. People aren’t products.
People are viewed as resources/products by those in power.
Doesn’t matter what they think. Reality contradicts it.
You just knew you were bested, so you dodged the point.
Nope. Explicitly refuted the point.
You’re filled with hatred from the truth of my words.
You have posted no truth. I have only posted truth.
white knighting for this society
You continue to project your own emotions even after being called out on it.
You’re the tolerant one for tolerating this society's disease ridden core
Explicitly fighting against it. You tolerate it with your apathy in refusing to do anything against it.
You are the coward for being afraid to let this society meet the end it needs and deserves
We will have our due. The traitors will be punished and the wicked brought to justice. And when society is rebuilt, you and your kind will be remembered and explicitly forbidden from enjoying its benefits.
I’m already runnin on fumes here.
Yes, your “argument” was ripped to shreds LONG ago.
I won't be betting on it.
You’ll be dead by then, so it doesn’t matter that I’m not a betting man.
Plenty. We are talking averages here. Nobodies personal experiences matter, it's facts and statistics. I hate to sound sexist, but shying away from speaking the truth is not only dangerous, but also intellectually dishonest.
I don't think debating you would bring either of us anywhere closer to anything so I'm just going to skip this one, sorry to sound like a douche (you are welcome to claim victory).
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Women have two primary goals: secure their place in society and secure a proper mate. Both are interrelated, though the former depends entirely on the type of society in which she resides. Women can’t lone wolf. If they have to, something went god-awfully wrong. Thus, they aim to fit within their society so as to not be ostracized, and then seek a man within that society as mate.
The second goal influences the first to the point that I can’t say anything about the former without the latter. Women like things they can’t get. so they usually act like whiny bitches and demand things not to get them, but to get told they can’t get them. There’s a proper logical reason as to why so many weak people complain that women keep friend-zoning them and going for assholes, and that reason is that the woman they were after saw that they were weak and discarded them as potential mates. What’s the mate selection process? It’s the woman’s instincts saying, “If you can control him, he’s too weak for you,” as if she was the guardian at the gate giving you the challenge that you have to beat her in order to pass. This ties in with why women paradoxically go for people that keep them in line or don’t care about them.
That aside, this is the main issue with women nowadays. They’re a symptom. They’re the canary in the coal mine. The coal mine is society. Women adapt to what they see as the society to prevent ostracism, as their instincts dictate. However, that society tells them to conform to certain norms that conflict with their instincts to find a mate. This society, that tells them to be a “strong independent woman that doesn’t need a man,” is fully against their nature. But they adapt, because it’s in their nature to follow, not to lead. What happens? They turn into feminists or sluts or some other category that causes only weak bitchmen to follow them, while proper mate material strays as far away as possible from them. Unhappiness universally follows as they keep trying to find a mate yet fail, never stopping–because they can’t go against their instincts–until they die alone with fifty cats and a history of six million sexual partners.
It doesn’t stop there. They are given power now, and with that power they carry out their instincts. A woman in power without proper handling will do to that which she’d do to a man: whine, demand, act like a stuck up bitch, and so on. Now, however, the law is in her favor and nobody will be able to do anything about it.
Let’s take the hypothetical scenario that a woman in power is causing the European invasion by non-whites. Again, hypothetical; we’re pretending jews aren’t involved. What would that mean? It doesn’t mean that the woman wants to destroy Europe. It means she wants you to put her in her place and eliminate the issues she’s causing, because that would mean you’re stronger than her and, by extension, would be able to protect her if a threat appears. Of course, the European situation is anything but this, this is made up for simplicity’s sake.
Hate them if you must, but never fall into the assumption that women are the same as men. Do not hold them to the same standards and do not use the same logic with them. Learn how to treat them and you’ll get someone who’ll madly want to bear your children. Traditional societies that encouraged manliness in men and proper values in women gave this to most women since the start, and when society changes, they adapt for better or worse.
The usual suspects know about these weaknesses in women’s nature. It’s no coincidence that women were given the vote by a certain group of happy merchants. They’re being manipulated. It’s also no coincidence that a great majority of feminists always have rape, male aggressiveness, and sexuality in their heads 24/7 like a fantasy, and that even some of them hold BDSM fetishes. The patriarchy against which they’re always raging? Consider that they’re surrounded by massive beta fucks that would kiss their shoes and you’ll get a clue of what they actually want. This idea of overpowering strength being what they want also ties in with Stockholm Syndrome.
“Privilege” means that in the culture each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, the ways you benefit from them, or that others don’t have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e, the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient–which was actually an obligation men compiled with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men, too.” What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them “rights” that women can choose–or not–as they see fit.
It–with the help of “advancements" like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life and provide her husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while still keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
As women are released from their obligations (to men and society) without giving up corresponding entitlements, things are becoming unbalanced. The system which was once equitable to both genders–which afforded entitlements to offset obligations–is gone, removing obligation from one member and placing them all on the other. A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc.), but now men have been kicked out of their own houses, figuratively and literally. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as a right rather than an obligation–and because they owe nothing to anyone other than their personal fulfillment, they’re paying the economic, social, and political cost. Well, men are paying that, but it affects women’s happiness, too.
Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract. When they took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, women soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social and legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support, and protection–or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit.” They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down, and the cut is taken mostly from men. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed it. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up.” Men have always either provided for women and children or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in and get even less out. Let me put it another way. Women make up about 60^ of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train them because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo; this generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in medical school are finite, because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school, due to affirmative action.
But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their careers at an obligation and expected to be working 50-70 hours a week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
The female doctor has taken out of society more than she has put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, but also pick up the slack. We all pay–with our tax revenue and by having to wait to see a doctor–but her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer male ones will have to take on even more burden to ensure that people can get an appointment.
Though women have made inroads into male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful way, because–get this–it sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men. You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have–and have always had–female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression for them.
There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to them. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in the role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive in their own lives–that only men can provide–all the while whining that purses are oppressive?
You can go ahead and become the martyr, trying to save this society.
But damn man, such anger and you even said this to a woman:
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Ouch, hypocrisy.
As for my analogy, it was spot on and you know it. People are viewed as resources/products by those in power. You just knew you were bested, so you dodged the point.
Finally, those quotes are supposed to apply to me, but hilariously, they apply even more to you.
You're filled with hatred from the truth of my words.
You're the ignorant one, thinking that white knighting for this society will save it.
You're the tolerant one for tolerating this society's disease ridden core as you attempt to save it.
You are the coward for being afraid to let this society meet the end it needs and deserves, so that those who fueled it and stood up for it can truly see how and why it failed.
I know my username gets a lot of love from commentators like you; the truth is hard to hear, bringing fear and anger, which you have displayed oh so much of during our conversation.
Well, friend, it was fun but I only have so many fucks to give about this society, people's opinions and you in particular, and I'm already runnin on fumes here.
Maybe next time we have some discourse, you'll have a better understanding of why your path is not desired by those who truly wish for a better world, but I won't be betting on it.
29 comments
4 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
The Orwellian new world order will be a feminist dystopia. The reason is because women are more easily manipulated, socially controlled, and conditioned.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
You’re fundamentally wrong.
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Women have two primary goals: secure their place in society and secure a proper mate. Both are interrelated, though the former depends entirely on the type of society in which she resides. Women can’t lone wolf. If they have to, something went god-awfully wrong. Thus, they aim to fit within their society so as to not be ostracized, and then seek a man within that society as mate.
The second goal influences the first to the point that I can’t say anything about the former without the latter. Women like things they can’t get. so they usually act like whiny bitches and demand things not to get them, but to get told they can’t get them. There’s a proper logical reason as to why so many weak people complain that women keep friend-zoning them and going for assholes, and that reason is that the woman they were after saw that they were weak and discarded them as potential mates. What’s the mate selection process? It’s the woman’s instincts saying, “If you can control him, he’s too weak for you,” as if she was the guardian at the gate giving you the challenge that you have to beat her in order to pass. This ties in with why women paradoxically go for people that keep them in line or don’t care about them.
That aside, this is the main issue with women nowadays. They’re a symptom. They’re the canary in the coal mine. The coal mine is society. Women adapt to what they see as the society to prevent ostracism, as their instincts dictate. However, that society tells them to conform to certain norms that conflict with their instincts to find a mate. This society, that tells them to be a “strong independent woman that doesn’t need a man,” is fully against their nature. But they adapt, because it’s in their nature to follow, not to lead. What happens? They turn into feminists or sluts or some other category that causes only weak bitchmen to follow them, while proper mate material strays as far away as possible from them. Unhappiness universally follows as they keep trying to find a mate yet fail, never stopping–because they can’t go against their instincts–until they die alone with fifty cats and a history of six million sexual partners.
It doesn’t stop there. They are given power now, and with that power they carry out their instincts. A woman in power without proper handling will do to that which she’d do to a man: whine, demand, act like a stuck up bitch, and so on. Now, however, the law is in her favor and nobody will be able to do anything about it.
Let’s take the hypothetical scenario that a woman in power is causing the European invasion by non-whites. Again, hypothetical; we’re pretending jews aren’t involved. What would that mean? It doesn’t mean that the woman wants to destroy Europe. It means she wants you to put her in her place and eliminate the issues she’s causing, because that would mean you’re stronger than her and, by extension, would be able to protect her if a threat appears. Of course, the European situation is anything but this, this is made up for simplicity’s sake.
Hate them if you must, but never fall into the assumption that women are the same as men. Do not hold them to the same standards and do not use the same logic with them. Learn how to treat them and you’ll get someone who’ll madly want to bear your children. Traditional societies that encouraged manliness in men and proper values in women gave this to most women since the start, and when society changes, they adapt for better or worse.
The usual suspects know about these weaknesses in women’s nature. It’s no coincidence that women were given the vote by a certain group of happy merchants. They’re being manipulated. It’s also no coincidence that a great majority of feminists always have rape, male aggressiveness, and sexuality in their heads 24/7 like a fantasy, and that even some of them hold BDSM fetishes. The patriarchy against which they’re always raging? Consider that they’re surrounded by massive beta fucks that would kiss their shoes and you’ll get a clue of what they actually want. This idea of overpowering strength being what they want also ties in with Stockholm Syndrome.
0 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
I see no rebuttal.
The responses prove literally the exact opposite. You don’t even know what they say.
1 nisaaru 2016-07-11
http://www.mconway.net/page1/page4/files/German%20Women%20and%20Hitler.pdf
"It was the women's vote", remarked Hermann Rauschning in 1939, "that brought Hitler to triumph".
0 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 nisaaru 2016-07-11
Have you actually looked at it?
0 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
I am very aware. Sorry to sound sexist but it's the truth. Guy below me put it very nicely.
0 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
“Privilege” means that in the culture each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, the ways you benefit from them, or that others don’t have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e, the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient–which was actually an obligation men compiled with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men, too.” What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them “rights” that women can choose–or not–as they see fit.
It–with the help of “advancements" like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life and provide her husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while still keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
As women are released from their obligations (to men and society) without giving up corresponding entitlements, things are becoming unbalanced. The system which was once equitable to both genders–which afforded entitlements to offset obligations–is gone, removing obligation from one member and placing them all on the other. A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc.), but now men have been kicked out of their own houses, figuratively and literally. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as a right rather than an obligation–and because they owe nothing to anyone other than their personal fulfillment, they’re paying the economic, social, and political cost. Well, men are paying that, but it affects women’s happiness, too.
Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract. When they took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, women soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social and legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support, and protection–or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit.” They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down, and the cut is taken mostly from men. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed it. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up.” Men have always either provided for women and children or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in and get even less out. Let me put it another way. Women make up about 60^ of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train them because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo; this generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in medical school are finite, because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school, due to affirmative action.
But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their careers at an obligation and expected to be working 50-70 hours a week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
The female doctor has taken out of society more than she has put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, but also pick up the slack. We all pay–with our tax revenue and by having to wait to see a doctor–but her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer male ones will have to take on even more burden to ensure that people can get an appointment.
Though women have made inroads into male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful way, because–get this–it sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men. You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have–and have always had–female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression for them.
There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to them. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in the role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive in their own lives–that only men can provide–all the while whining that purses are oppressive?
1 IShouldNotSayIt 2016-07-11
Go search out what MGTOW is, you'll fit right in.
0 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
You either don’t know what MGTOW is or are mocking me for not being that...
MGTOW is male feminism. It’s the other side of the coin doing the damage to society. It’s garbage and no one should subscribe to it
1 IShouldNotSayIt 2016-07-11
Ironically, MGTOW have the exact same beliefs you just ranted about in your two posts.
Perhaps you should give it another look, because male feminism is completely off the mark.
Essentially, MGTOW is men that have been shafted by, or seen other men shafted by, society. In response, they are boycotting society.
Would you get married? I know I wouldn't, because marriage is a contract of slavery for a man in our society. In that way, many aspects of society are contracts of slavery, such as getting into debt.
MGTOWs have seen the truth of society: that every promise and smile hides a snakes fangs. The only way to win is to not play.
Perhaps you would like to fight for this society, but I wouldn't. I'd rather let it crumble, to allow people to see where they failed. If you white knight for this society and save it, you reinforce their belief that what they are doing is okay, because it worked out in the end.
No need to label yourself a MGTOW though, even though you share almost their exact thoughts. I sometimes label myself one just to piss societal white knights off, but in reality, I don't consider myself any label, because once you label yourself something, you pigeonhole yourself into conforming.
0 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
Which is retarded and counterproductive. It’s a coward’s behavior.
You’re literally just projecting MGTOW bullshit onto others. Holy fucking shit, I didn’t think you people existed.
2 IShouldNotSayIt 2016-07-11
I suppose you would rather sacrifice yourself for a society that threw you away?
Personally, I have intention to be a martyr. I'll let you have that glory, and when you're gone, I'll be sure to double my enjoyment of my life to make up for you.
It's quite ironic that you would view women in such a way, then turn around and white knight for the society that put us in this position to begin with.
I suppose understanding one doesn't allow you to understand both.
As for boycotting being counterproductive, retarded and cowardly...if a business poisoned its products, would you consider boycotting them to be counterproductive, retarded and cowardly?
This society is a poison, as you so elegantly put it with the canary in the coalmine analogy. I'll boycott the shit out of it all day every day.
You seem to believe that you can change society and the people with wisdom, knowledge and truth. As you will eventually find out as you get older, life doesn't work that way. People hate to be told the horrible truth, instead preferring the comforting lie. History shows that those who speak the truth to try and spark change are hated not only by those in power, but by the very people they seek to save. Shooting the messenger, if you will.
Also, you seem very angry for some reason. You shouldn't let your emotions get so charged up; it's very feminine.
0 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
I’d sacrifice myself to rebuild my society.
You’re an r-selected milquetoast and you will roast alongside those being punished.
Not happening.
People aren’t products. Your analogy is bullshit.
The cure is not to let the poison “run its course”. It’s to amputate the gangrenous limbs.
Wow, you’re stupid.
So you punch them in the face with the truth until they relent or are dead. You don’t act like a fucking coward and run away.
Cute, but retarded.
The first reaction to truth is hatred. – Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. – Thomas Jefferson
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society. – Aristotle
Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right ways is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. – Margaret Chase Smith
These are people history has remembered. You will be forgotten so completely that the only mention of you will be collectively as “retards who gave up all their ancestors had wrought and got what they deserved because of it.”
Stick to your username; you don’t have anything true to say, anyway.
2 IShouldNotSayIt 2016-07-11
Ah, so you are as naive as I presumed.
You can go ahead and become the martyr, trying to save this society.
But damn man, such anger and you even said this to a woman:
Ouch, hypocrisy.
As for my analogy, it was spot on and you know it. People are viewed as resources/products by those in power. You just knew you were bested, so you dodged the point.
Finally, those quotes are supposed to apply to me, but hilariously, they apply even more to you.
You're filled with hatred from the truth of my words.
You're the ignorant one, thinking that white knighting for this society will save it.
You're the tolerant one for tolerating this society's disease ridden core as you attempt to save it.
You are the coward for being afraid to let this society meet the end it needs and deserves, so that those who fueled it and stood up for it can truly see how and why it failed.
I know my username gets a lot of love from commentators like you; the truth is hard to hear, bringing fear and anger, which you have displayed oh so much of during our conversation.
Well, friend, it was fun but I only have so many fucks to give about this society, people's opinions and you in particular, and I'm already runnin on fumes here.
Maybe next time we have some discourse, you'll have a better understanding of why your path is not desired by those who truly wish for a better world, but I won't be betting on it.
1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
Learn what words mean before using them.
Nope. People aren’t products.
Doesn’t matter what they think. Reality contradicts it.
Nope. Explicitly refuted the point.
You have posted no truth. I have only posted truth.
You continue to project your own emotions even after being called out on it.
Explicitly fighting against it. You tolerate it with your apathy in refusing to do anything against it.
We will have our due. The traitors will be punished and the wicked brought to justice. And when society is rebuilt, you and your kind will be remembered and explicitly forbidden from enjoying its benefits.
Yes, your “argument” was ripped to shreds LONG ago.
You’ll be dead by then, so it doesn’t matter that I’m not a betting man.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
0 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
'Have you ever met any women?'
Plenty. We are talking averages here. Nobodies personal experiences matter, it's facts and statistics. I hate to sound sexist, but shying away from speaking the truth is not only dangerous, but also intellectually dishonest.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
All I said is that women are more easily manipulated, socially controlled, and conditioned [than men].
2 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
-1 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
I don't think debating you would bring either of us anywhere closer to anything so I'm just going to skip this one, sorry to sound like a douche (you are welcome to claim victory).
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
-1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
You’re kidding, right? That’s not at all how power works.
1 [deleted] 2016-07-11
[deleted]
1 polkadotgirl 2016-07-11
Hmm.
3 Balthanos 2016-07-11
I saw one once. Maybe.
3 SokarRostau 2016-07-11
There are no women on r/conspiracy. Only FBI agents.
1 luckinator 2016-07-11
I'm pretty sure there are some female NSA agents.
2 SokarRostau 2016-07-11
Bots are genderless.
1 polkadotgirl 2016-07-11
Lol true!
1 MKULTRAserialkillers 2016-07-11
Check the sidebar
2 polkadotgirl 2016-07-11
Sorry I was tired.
1 Kercharelli 2016-07-11
Hi.
1 polkadotgirl 2016-07-11
Hello
1 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
You’re fundamentally wrong.
No wonder you’re fundamentally wrong. You can’t see past your emotions.
Women have two primary goals: secure their place in society and secure a proper mate. Both are interrelated, though the former depends entirely on the type of society in which she resides. Women can’t lone wolf. If they have to, something went god-awfully wrong. Thus, they aim to fit within their society so as to not be ostracized, and then seek a man within that society as mate.
The second goal influences the first to the point that I can’t say anything about the former without the latter. Women like things they can’t get. so they usually act like whiny bitches and demand things not to get them, but to get told they can’t get them. There’s a proper logical reason as to why so many weak people complain that women keep friend-zoning them and going for assholes, and that reason is that the woman they were after saw that they were weak and discarded them as potential mates. What’s the mate selection process? It’s the woman’s instincts saying, “If you can control him, he’s too weak for you,” as if she was the guardian at the gate giving you the challenge that you have to beat her in order to pass. This ties in with why women paradoxically go for people that keep them in line or don’t care about them.
That aside, this is the main issue with women nowadays. They’re a symptom. They’re the canary in the coal mine. The coal mine is society. Women adapt to what they see as the society to prevent ostracism, as their instincts dictate. However, that society tells them to conform to certain norms that conflict with their instincts to find a mate. This society, that tells them to be a “strong independent woman that doesn’t need a man,” is fully against their nature. But they adapt, because it’s in their nature to follow, not to lead. What happens? They turn into feminists or sluts or some other category that causes only weak bitchmen to follow them, while proper mate material strays as far away as possible from them. Unhappiness universally follows as they keep trying to find a mate yet fail, never stopping–because they can’t go against their instincts–until they die alone with fifty cats and a history of six million sexual partners.
It doesn’t stop there. They are given power now, and with that power they carry out their instincts. A woman in power without proper handling will do to that which she’d do to a man: whine, demand, act like a stuck up bitch, and so on. Now, however, the law is in her favor and nobody will be able to do anything about it.
Let’s take the hypothetical scenario that a woman in power is causing the European invasion by non-whites. Again, hypothetical; we’re pretending jews aren’t involved. What would that mean? It doesn’t mean that the woman wants to destroy Europe. It means she wants you to put her in her place and eliminate the issues she’s causing, because that would mean you’re stronger than her and, by extension, would be able to protect her if a threat appears. Of course, the European situation is anything but this, this is made up for simplicity’s sake.
Hate them if you must, but never fall into the assumption that women are the same as men. Do not hold them to the same standards and do not use the same logic with them. Learn how to treat them and you’ll get someone who’ll madly want to bear your children. Traditional societies that encouraged manliness in men and proper values in women gave this to most women since the start, and when society changes, they adapt for better or worse.
The usual suspects know about these weaknesses in women’s nature. It’s no coincidence that women were given the vote by a certain group of happy merchants. They’re being manipulated. It’s also no coincidence that a great majority of feminists always have rape, male aggressiveness, and sexuality in their heads 24/7 like a fantasy, and that even some of them hold BDSM fetishes. The patriarchy against which they’re always raging? Consider that they’re surrounded by massive beta fucks that would kiss their shoes and you’ll get a clue of what they actually want. This idea of overpowering strength being what they want also ties in with Stockholm Syndrome.
0 peanutwrath66 2016-07-11
I am very aware. Sorry to sound sexist but it's the truth. Guy below me put it very nicely.
0 UsernamesNeedMoreCha 2016-07-11
“Privilege” means that in the culture each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, the ways you benefit from them, or that others don’t have them and cannot benefit from them.
Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e, the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient–which was actually an obligation men compiled with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men, too.” What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them “rights” that women can choose–or not–as they see fit.
It–with the help of “advancements" like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life and provide her husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while still keeping the entitlement to his financial support.
As women are released from their obligations (to men and society) without giving up corresponding entitlements, things are becoming unbalanced. The system which was once equitable to both genders–which afforded entitlements to offset obligations–is gone, removing obligation from one member and placing them all on the other. A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc.), but now men have been kicked out of their own houses, figuratively and literally. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as a right rather than an obligation–and because they owe nothing to anyone other than their personal fulfillment, they’re paying the economic, social, and political cost. Well, men are paying that, but it affects women’s happiness, too.
Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract. When they took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, women soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social and legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support, and protection–or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit.” They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down, and the cut is taken mostly from men. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed it. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up.” Men have always either provided for women and children or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in and get even less out. Let me put it another way. Women make up about 60^ of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train them because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo; this generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in medical school are finite, because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school, due to affirmative action.
But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their careers at an obligation and expected to be working 50-70 hours a week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.
The female doctor has taken out of society more than she has put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, but also pick up the slack. We all pay–with our tax revenue and by having to wait to see a doctor–but her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer male ones will have to take on even more burden to ensure that people can get an appointment.
Though women have made inroads into male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful way, because–get this–it sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men. You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have–and have always had–female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression for them.
There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to them. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in the role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive in their own lives–that only men can provide–all the while whining that purses are oppressive?
1 nisaaru 2016-07-11
http://www.mconway.net/page1/page4/files/German%20Women%20and%20Hitler.pdf
"It was the women's vote", remarked Hermann Rauschning in 1939, "that brought Hitler to triumph".
2 IShouldNotSayIt 2016-07-11
Ah, so you are as naive as I presumed.
You can go ahead and become the martyr, trying to save this society.
But damn man, such anger and you even said this to a woman:
Ouch, hypocrisy.
As for my analogy, it was spot on and you know it. People are viewed as resources/products by those in power. You just knew you were bested, so you dodged the point.
Finally, those quotes are supposed to apply to me, but hilariously, they apply even more to you.
You're filled with hatred from the truth of my words.
You're the ignorant one, thinking that white knighting for this society will save it.
You're the tolerant one for tolerating this society's disease ridden core as you attempt to save it.
You are the coward for being afraid to let this society meet the end it needs and deserves, so that those who fueled it and stood up for it can truly see how and why it failed.
I know my username gets a lot of love from commentators like you; the truth is hard to hear, bringing fear and anger, which you have displayed oh so much of during our conversation.
Well, friend, it was fun but I only have so many fucks to give about this society, people's opinions and you in particular, and I'm already runnin on fumes here.
Maybe next time we have some discourse, you'll have a better understanding of why your path is not desired by those who truly wish for a better world, but I won't be betting on it.