It is true. But also laced with unnecessary bitterness, rooted in disappointment over false expectations and misunderstanding of human nature.
Women have a biological imperative to get noticed by as many men as possible. They act this way because it works. It works because many men respond to it with mostly positive attention. Even negative attention, such as this, is still attention. It is pointless to rage against nature. Things that are effective will persist, for as long as they are effective.
You cannot fix women. They are working as intended. If their behavior disgusts you, then you must fix the men that enable it.
Likewise for voting rights, and everything else. Women did not take any rights for themselves. They could not, if they tried. Nature did not bestow them with the power to do so. It was all given, by men. It is all maintained, by men. If, tomorrow morning, all men in the West woke up with the firm conviction that all this madness should come to an end, then it would be so, before the day was done. And there is not one thing women could do about it. Most would not even try. Most would willingly submit, adapt, fit in, and find new ways to appeal. Ways which would please the newly dominant expectations of men. Look to the Middle East and see the undeniable truth of that.
Our problems aren't caused by our women.
Our problems are caused by the men whose heads are full of poisonous garbage ideals, and the snakes that put them there.
There will always be those who will exploit your weaknesses. If it wasn't Jews, it would be someone else. In fact, there are plenty of others taking advantage in their own ways. And why would it be any different?
It is foolish to expect your enemies to treat you kindly. And more foolish, still, to wish to have no enemies at all.
You don't stop being prey by bemoaning the prowess, or cunning, or ruthlessness of your predators.
You stop being prey by becoming the better predator.
Read my response to fascinus and tell me where Im wrong. You are obviously my intellectual superior so I will expect a more specific critique than REEEEEEEEEEE!
Incels are an inherent problem that occurs when males are permitted to have sex with more than one female. Its a simple math problem. Females will never be heavily incentivized to have high body counts until the day when women no longer have to be pregnant. But promiscuity is a feasible reproductive strategy for males. However when some males start to hoard uteruses other males will have none, because the birth ratio of m:f is 1.
This is what the distributions of number of sexual partners will always look like in polygamy for females and males. Low status males are always the biggest losers in polygamy. Male distribution will be bimodal (two bumps).
Males are as much the cause of incels as females. Males are the victims of their own opportunistic reproductive tendencies. Mel Gibson is the victor in a polygamous scenario. To maintain an “egalitarian” monogamous distribution, Mel Gibson’s offspring must be prevented from reproducing.
Blah blah blah muh polygamy chimp out. Broken record you are. Learn a new tune ffs. Go complain about low iq shitskin polygamy to your muzzie relatives. Thanks for acknowledging I’m your intellectual superior though.
I don’t really think he’s jewed , just really angry and frustrated and looking for a simplistic answer. When obviously the correct simplistic answer is jews! Lol but the idea that women are never truly serious and just larp as serious to play sexy games shows how profoundly he lacks experience with women.
Maybe his mom was a bimbo or something. My mom was serious as fuck. As in heart attack. No one could ever doubt her seriousness. Not a larp. The world of women is not confined to instagram whores. Make an actual female friend who you aren’t trying to fuck and you will find that out.
Yes, but the really big problem here is that the women who fall into feminism are the bimbos 100%. There's no reason for an intelligent woman to want to be a feminist. The feminist bimbos don't want to vote. (they vote, but it's easy to distract them away from the polls) They don't want to make decisions in spite of the attention they get saying they do. They'll let other women dominate and manipulate them in a second. The rational non feminists don't want to be around them and don't want to manipulate them. They aren't their husbands. The burka bimbos in Britain living in sex slavery supporting an entire muslim family with her own prostitution White bimbos, and the ame animal as feminists. They'll turn on all women and give -everything- away institutionally if they can.
Inb4 "you hate women" or whatever... nothing could be further from the truth.
There's a lot of room for individual variation and exceptions within these *broad* strokes (pun unintentional) and damned if he doesn't describe the default, common denominator condition of the fairer sex rather accurately.
I think it is important to leverage observations such as these to inform our introspection, rather than as sticks to beat each other with.
If we are able to understand our base motives and intentions on an objective basis, we can leverage that understanding as context within which further growth may occur.
Im going to respond to you because I think I might get the most rational discussion from you based on your response. I agree with much of what he said. But he is simplistic — females are no more evil or corrupt than males. We are selected for the psychological traits that make us successful reproductively. There is variation within populations and variation between populations eg niggers.
We can look at the societies where males have the most power like the Islamic ME and say that these are truly rape cultures full of males that are violent and corrupt and theiving. Simplistically I could conclude “this is what males are all really like” because these traits are always higher in males. They are tactics that benefit males, not females (rape and violence anyway) but all males don’t utililize those tactics. They are the opportunistic tactics that males will eventually resort to if they are allowed to. Women have other opportunistic tactics, they are different character traits—seduction for one, which is highly useful on males who are generally far more libidinous (no male ever looked so good to me that I felt the need to shove a 10 in his undies).
The MGTOW he-man woman haters club here insists that white males are all very self controlled (mostly true) and there’s no comparison between them and muslim rapist head choppers. But that’s incorrect. We are all no more than 5 or 10 generations away from muslim head choppy babylon. Anytime you allow males to have more than one female, they engage in a reproductive arms race in which genetic traits for violence and deception become really useful to eliminate male competitors. This will always happen with polygamy regardless of whiteness. Polygamy promotes opportunistic traits in males. It is only because we evolved in societies in which cold winters deselected more promiscuous males that we are monogamous and ultimately less violent and less rapey.
The current problem is not because women are inherently more corrupt or opportunistic than males. It is because the regime is allowing women, blacks, immigrants, fags, jews to loot wealth produced by white males and giving them justification for it. Some are taking advantage of it and some are not. Obviously many women are not holding up their end of the social bargain ie birthing and raising white men’s kids. Its a corrupt system that unfairly favors women temporarily. I assure you they don’t see it that way. The irony is that only monogamy within a patrilineal agrarian society has ever put women in such a powerful bargaining position. Within monogamy males are incentivize to behave more favorably toward females (nice guy traits) and to work harder and produce more wealth — all to (selfishly) acquire the best female (which becomes paramount when you are limited to one). White men are nice and work hard because white women can afford to be choosey. All this goes away when monogamy is destroyed— how ironic for the feminist. The more opportunistic women, niggers, jews behave, the more the hard working white male is disincentivized. No one understands this.
And this guy doesn’t understand that males are equally as corruptible. Males drove the growth of super-powerful socialist governments because they believes the myth that government could erase all social disparities without subsidizing failure. Males voted for redistribution programs like social security and welfare and other gibs programs. Many males supported easy divorce laws and legalized pornography and and end to laws against fornication. They benefited most males at the time, opportunistically.
TLDR Humans will tend to behave opportunistically if they can, and the more opportunism goes unpunished, the more that opportunistic genetic traits will be favored in the population. Cold winters drove white males to be monogamists, monogamy prevented agressive males from flooding the population with their genes, female preference—more heavily weighted in a monogamist regime — selected male traits for hard work and chivalrous ‘simp’ behavior traits. Females are not more opportunistic than men. Utopian government religion subsidizes opportunists at the expense of more productive, conservative strategists.
“Ladies suck” is a low IQ take on what is actually happening here - evolution.
Im going to respond to you because I think I might get the most rational discussion from you based on your response. I agree with much of what he said. But he is simplistic — females are no more evil or corrupt than males.
Appreciate the sentiment and I hope that you will take it for the compliment that it is that I had you in mind with the prior comment.
You are clearly an intelligent and rational person capable of making good decisions, which is why I’m sure arguments such as these may have a tendency to rub you the wrong way.
Let me tell you how much the Mrs. enjoys these conversations :)
It’s a shame and, (though not a perfect sample) as must surely be attested by lady goats being outnumbered by orders of magnitude, ladies of your caliber appear to be in the minority these days.
females are no more evil or corrupt than males.
Totally agree.
We are selected for the psychological traits that make us successful reproductively.
Very insightful. It is precisely some of these traits that are prevalent in women that render them more susceptible to intrusion upon their in-group. I was actually inclined to go into this further on the initial submission, only I don’t have my shit together like @try :)
In a nutshell, historically and with few exceptions, women spread their legs for conquerors whereas men will more typically fight to the death. These are, precisely as you assert, psychological traits that make us successful reproductively. No judgement here. The conquerors demonstrated greater worthiness as potential mates by virtue of their conquest. It is what it is.
This predisposition toward allowing, and even inviting, incursions upon their in-group is perhaps most perfectly exemplified by the multitudes of women holding “rapefugees welcome” signs.
The more opportunistic women, niggers, jews behave, the more the hard working white male is disincentivized. No one understands this.
I don’t disagree with any of this other than the part about no one understanding. Lots of goats seem to intuit this even if they can’t fully articulate the position.
And this guy doesn’t understand that males are equally as corruptible.
He may or he may not. The derisive posture he takes leads me to agree with your assertion as the most likely, yet who among us is able to see the giant stick poking out of our own eye as well as we can spot the splinter in others?
[Nu]Males drove the growth of super-powerful socialist governments because they believes the myth that government could erase all social disparities without subsidizing failure.
communism is for megalomaniacal shadow dictators and losers. Practically no one in between thinks it’s a good idea once they bother to look past the thin veneer of utopianism unless they have some emotional investment in remaining willfully ignorant.
Males voted for redistribution programs like social security and welfare and other gibs programs. Many males supported easy divorce laws and legalized pornography and and end to laws against fornication. They benefited most males at the time, opportunistically.
All of this without the aid of woman? I’m willing to take you at your word and I think it pays to look at all of these events within the broader context of the current events of the time. None of this occurred in a vacuum.
TLDR Humans will tend to behave opportunistically if they can, and the more opportunism goes unpunished, the more that opportunistic genetic traits will be favored in the population. Cold winters drove white males to be monogamists, monogamy prevented agressive males from flooding the population with their genes, female preference—more heavily weighted in a monogamist regime — selected male traits for hard work and chivalrous ‘simp’ behavior traits. Females are not more opportunistic than men.
Nothing to add here.
~Utopian~ communist government religion subsidizes opportunists at the expense of more productive, conservative strategists.
“Ladies suck” is a low IQ take on what is actually happening here - evolution.
Hence the preface to my earlier comment. I didn’t hear that from the guy on the video and I certainly didn’t intend to say as much, though I am aware of an undercurrent of such sentiment being expressed hereabouts.
What I heard on the video was a man describing specific criticisms of unconscious female tendencies.
Ladies do not suck categorically (though some of them do if you’re nice to them, or maybe if they hate their fathers enough ;) ), they are God’s gift to man. Saying “ladies suck” is analogous to criticizing flowers for failing to thrive in a toxic environment. Sure, some will fare better than others and that’s only one side of the equation.
Ultimately, you make many persuasive arguments and I find little to disagree with. I will say that, for my part, it’s less important to try to determine which sex is more predisposed toward morality and it is to focus on specific behaviors and how they manifest as dysfunctions within society.
Simply put, women are more easily exploited on an emotional basis and have less of s stake in maintaining societies. After all, they’ll have progeny either way. It’s only a matter of with whom.
One factor that I think the video and many analyses on the matter of suffrage miss is that votes for all moves the basic unit of atomicity within a society from the family to the individual, a natural result of which is that laws and policies favoring the individual over the family are adopted. Often at the expense of the family.
As the prevalence of the family and the quality of family life degrades over time, so too does society regress toward the mean of degeneracy which, surely, you have witnessed at least some aspects of within your lifetime.
TLDR:
You’re not bad. Women aren’t bad (in fact, they’re great).
Men are not better than women. Men and women are better than each other in certain capacities.
Men and women are different. Both are exploitable. Some means of exploitation are common to both sexes, while others present primarily in one sex or the other.
Some of the ways in which women are more exploitable are more easily weaponized by those wishing to destroy our society.
Society is better when sexual behavior of both sexes is restrained, ideally with a focus on the family.
Repealing suffrage is seen by many, myself included, as a step toward restoring the balance of power to the family over the individual.
Appreciate the sentiment and I hope that you will take it for the compliment that it is that I had you in mind with the prior comment.
Shucks guy!
@try
Had some great comments. Hope they come back
In a nutshell, historically and with few exceptions, women spread their legs for conquerors
Hmm yes and no. Let’s take beaners which are a great example of a new race being created by invading males and local leg spreaders. Beaners may cry rape but we know better. However it doesn’t mean that all native females were disloyal ibero-philes, only that the traitorous bitches were the most reproductively successful. As males frequently invade foreign lands to opportunistically raid other tribes’ women, the most faithless females become reproductively successful during these events. More loyal and indeed less submissive females are deselected (maybe are even killed) while disloyal and submissive females are favored. Are males selecting for females with easily shifted loyalties over and over again throughout history and then crying “la donna e mobile?” It could be construed that way. ;-)
Lots of goats seem to intuit this even if they can’t fully articulate the position.
Lots sense it morally or instinctively but can’t explain it in scientific terms to the “I fucking love science” faggots, who need to have their faces rubbed in it over and over everytime they snidely brag about their selective embrace of evolution.
Practically no one in between thinks it’s a good idea once they bother to look past the thin veneer of utopianism
If only this were true. We’ve been embracing a watered down form of it for decades. Its not pure Marxism because Marxism isnt really possible. But weve accomplished the same thing. A small number of bureacrats from public and private sectors who create no wealth and do not add to efficiency but destroy it, now have totally control. Theres no difference between private and public sector bureacrats other than utopians’ belief that public sector bureacrats are beyond corruption because government is magic.
All of this without the aid of woman?
Not at all but I think men were more in the driver’s seat at the start of the 20th century for sure and arguably up to the 70s or 80s. I think the rise in divorce from the 50s really initially benefitted men until the 80s or 90s when virtually all women had jobs.
Simply put, women are more easily exploited on an emotional basis and have less of s stake in maintaining societies.
Let us say they can be more easily exploited through compassion, and through “mommy fixey” policies which make everything fair for all the “little kiddies” in the country but at who’s expense? It doesn’t occur to women because women don’t produce significant amounts of wealth. White women are about as productive as niggers, generally. Maybe better in some areas and worse in others. But white women never built a great civilization anywhere. If all the women stayed home everything would still get done. Thats been proven before.
White women are not stupider than white men, unlike niggers, but they are not optimized for wealth production. High productivity was a trait that SOME males were selected for— whites, east asians— as a strategy for getting laid and for bequeathing great wealth to their sons. It was never incentivized in women. Theres no reason to think women can contribute equally to wealth production. Most females’ jobs are fake and not contributing to overall prosperity. I don’t think sufferage is necessarily bad, I think that women’s power over the redistribution of males’ work product is totally corrupt. Compensation has been totally divorced from useful work so ever faggot with a paycheck feels entitled but most of them aren’t .
One factor that I think the video and many analyses on the matter of suffrage miss is that votes for all moves the basic unit of atomicity within a society from the family to the [individual
The bureacracy loves economic disinformation because through this it can enslave more productive people and bribe underperformers with confiscated wealth, without too many people catching on. This increases centralized control at the expense of familial and tribal allegiances which are gene based and decentralized. Some people are genetically more productive and efficient and have little or no need for a large bureacracy. Lots of people think they will benefit from the redistribution scheme but only 50% do and all the time the pie gets smaller and smaller since confiscation of work product disincentivizes hard work and honesty.
Bureacrats want to destroy genetic signals for success which make them irrelevant. Its all a disinformaiton scheme. An efficient society has minimal bureacracy because bureacracy generates no wealth and is only informational. Jews expand bureacracies and utilize disinformation to parasitize successful societies and tend to pander to the underperformers and outsiders as allies. But Ive gone on too long.
I agree with everything you said apart from a minor quibble with the commie business: I maintain (perhaps idealistically) that proponents are, for the most part, charlatans who know better or losers who won't bother to examine the ideology beyond a superficial basis.
Doesn't make you wrong about the inroads it has been making into our society, however : /
That being said, I can well imagine how, with your *broad* view of the factors in play (see what I did there? :) ), that it could feel insulting to you to hear from others that your right to vote should be revoked based upon your sex, particularly when you are demonstrably smarter than some men. If so, I feel like I can relate to that.
Though I do stand by the statements I made earlier concerning manipulation, to me it's more a matter of putting the votes into the hands of productive members of society and returning the focus to the family than anything else.
that it could feel insulting to you to hear from others that your right to vote should be revoked based upon your sex,
Not so much as the assertion that only women and all women are “frivolous decision makers” and “fickle”. Who imported millions of niggers in to the new world? Who indebted our nations to a network of jewish userers? The hyper-competition of colonial superpowers to hoard resources and make easy cash through rum, tobacco, opium, tea, slavery —these were testoterone laden moves made by men long before women could vote. What about that shit show the civil war? Or so many other wars that sent useful young men off to die for greedy elites? That is the wanton destruction of female work product. Women have a 50% stake in society. Our work product is critical. That is apparent since we have farmed it out to the state and sent women to work.
Im willing to have a serious conversation with anyone about the pros and cons of female vote or female politicians or females in the workplace as long as that person comprehends that although some areas of society are better tended to by men, some are better tended to by women, and men are no less corruptible then women. Video guy cherry picks some 20 year old youtuber and extrapolates that all women are betty boop and all men are thomas jefferson. Nuh-uh.
What concerns me is male abuse of power. Males absolutely will abuse power if they can. Women do need checks and balances on male power. Females are abusing their power today. I call it the Karenocracy. But males have of course abused their power before and will likely do so again one day. Its myopic to just say that the problem is just wahmens who are fundamentally stupid and flakey. They aren’t. They have different priorites that make sense for their role in society. The problem is when any one group gains too much power and begins to take advantage of another. Any group— male or female— will be greedy and abusive if given the chance. We are just setting ourselves up for the same problems over and over.
We have to decide what is optimal — what will result in long term stability, high efficiency and prosperity, high value for individual life, balanced with resposibility to the group. Outside of getting rid of groups who are predisposed toward deception, violence and laziness, I think women’s participation in the workplace should be reduced and their work raising children should be reemphisized. Divorce should be outlawed excepting extreme cases, and out of wedlock sex should be illegal and punished with prison. Government should be 1/10th the size it is now and more devolved to state and local levels. Forced charity through government should be outlawed. Voting age should be at least 30. Perhaps we should outlaw billionaires and corporations over a certain size. When certain actors become too powerful there is no improvement in efficiency, only increased corruption.
Damn I wanted to make that one short. But blah blah blah, you’ve encouraged the female to run her mouth off— its all your fault. Rapist.
[ - ] oldblo 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:13:37 ago (+1/-0)
He claimed to be autistic once. So im guessing troll, autistic, or bot. We shouldnt be high profile enough to have a glownigger dedicated to making often incoherent or off topic comments for the sake of site perception management.
I'm not yelling. I'm EMPHASIZING like the DO in the Bible. Liberals RUIN everything they touch (hijack). Yelling. sheesh. It's the autism I think. NO really.
The idea of “conservative” is a joke anymore. The idea of a “conservative woman” is even worse. Of course the ideals of a conservative woman are corrupt. These conservatives have been infiltrated by jewery, as this vulgar and slutty display reveals. Remember, conservatives are Christian, and Christians of course are now “judaeo-Christian”.
This is the result of thinking there is something to conserve once you turn your back on God or fervently supporting a government solely based in religious doctrine.
[ + ] albatrosv15
[ - ] albatrosv15 11 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 11:37:32 ago (+11/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 4 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:49:26 ago (+4/-0)
Women have a biological imperative to get noticed by as many men as possible. They act this way because it works. It works because many men respond to it with mostly positive attention. Even negative attention, such as this, is still attention. It is pointless to rage against nature. Things that are effective will persist, for as long as they are effective.
You cannot fix women. They are working as intended. If their behavior disgusts you, then you must fix the men that enable it.
Likewise for voting rights, and everything else. Women did not take any rights for themselves. They could not, if they tried. Nature did not bestow them with the power to do so. It was all given, by men. It is all maintained, by men. If, tomorrow morning, all men in the West woke up with the firm conviction that all this madness should come to an end, then it would be so, before the day was done. And there is not one thing women could do about it. Most would not even try. Most would willingly submit, adapt, fit in, and find new ways to appeal. Ways which would please the newly dominant expectations of men. Look to the Middle East and see the undeniable truth of that.
Our problems aren't caused by our women.
Our problems are caused by the men whose heads are full of poisonous garbage ideals, and the snakes that put them there.
[ + ] SilentByAssociation
[ - ] SilentByAssociation 4 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 17:12:17 ago (+4/-0)
So... jews?
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 20:12:24 ago (+2/-0)
It is foolish to expect your enemies to treat you kindly. And more foolish, still, to wish to have no enemies at all.
You don't stop being prey by bemoaning the prowess, or cunning, or ruthlessness of your predators.
You stop being prey by becoming the better predator.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 22:16:19 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:01:24 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 4 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:40:03 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:42:18 ago (+2/-1)
Incels are an inherent problem that occurs when males are permitted to have sex with more than one female. Its a simple math problem. Females will never be heavily incentivized to have high body counts until the day when women no longer have to be pregnant. But promiscuity is a feasible reproductive strategy for males. However when some males start to hoard uteruses other males will have none, because the birth ratio of m:f is 1.
This is what the distributions of number of sexual partners will always look like in polygamy for females and males. Low status males are always the biggest losers in polygamy. Male distribution will be bimodal (two bumps).
https://files.catbox.moe/mz9qx0.jpeg
Males are as much the cause of incels as females. Males are the victims of their own opportunistic reproductive tendencies. Mel Gibson is the victor in a polygamous scenario. To maintain an “egalitarian” monogamous distribution, Mel Gibson’s offspring must be prevented from reproducing.
Its math. Also I already know who hurt you.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 21:07:38 ago (+2/-0)
Broken record you are. Learn a new tune ffs.
Go complain about low iq shitskin polygamy to your muzzie relatives.
Thanks for acknowledging I’m your intellectual superior though.
Also, you know nothing.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 22:12:43 ago (+2/-1)
Oh it’s obvious to everyone.
[ + ] GrayDragon
[ - ] GrayDragon 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 22:47:01 ago (+1/-0)
Agreed. Weak males and weak females.
E: This is a jew post. While the video guy has some points, he went overboard.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 23:14:34 ago (+1/-0)
Maybe his mom was a bimbo or something. My mom was serious as fuck. As in heart attack. No one could ever doubt her seriousness. Not a larp. The world of women is not confined to instagram whores. Make an actual female friend who you aren’t trying to fuck and you will find that out.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 10:21:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 6 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 12:44:06 ago (+6/-0)
There's a lot of room for individual variation and exceptions within these *broad* strokes (pun unintentional) and damned if he doesn't describe the default, common denominator condition of the fairer sex rather accurately.
I think it is important to leverage observations such as these to inform our introspection, rather than as sticks to beat each other with.
As the ancient Greeks said, (γνῶθι σεαυτόν)[https://infogalactic.com/info/Know_thyself].
If we are able to understand our base motives and intentions on an objective basis, we can leverage that understanding as context within which further growth may occur.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 5 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 12:56:05 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 12:58:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:05:42 ago (+3/-0)
We can look at the societies where males have the most power like the Islamic ME and say that these are truly rape cultures full of males that are violent and corrupt and theiving. Simplistically I could conclude “this is what males are all really like” because these traits are always higher in males. They are tactics that benefit males, not females (rape and violence anyway) but all males don’t utililize those tactics. They are the opportunistic tactics that males will eventually resort to if they are allowed to. Women have other opportunistic tactics, they are different character traits—seduction for one, which is highly useful on males who are generally far more libidinous (no male ever looked so good to me that I felt the need to shove a 10 in his undies).
The MGTOW he-man woman haters club here insists that white males are all very self controlled (mostly true) and there’s no comparison between them and muslim rapist head choppers. But that’s incorrect. We are all no more than 5 or 10 generations away from muslim head choppy babylon. Anytime you allow males to have more than one female, they engage in a reproductive arms race in which genetic traits for violence and deception become really useful to eliminate male competitors. This will always happen with polygamy regardless of whiteness. Polygamy promotes opportunistic traits in males. It is only because we evolved in societies in which cold winters deselected more promiscuous males that we are monogamous and ultimately less violent and less rapey.
The current problem is not because women are inherently more corrupt or opportunistic than males. It is because the regime is allowing women, blacks, immigrants, fags, jews to loot wealth produced by white males and giving them justification for it. Some are taking advantage of it and some are not. Obviously many women are not holding up their end of the social bargain ie birthing and raising white men’s kids. Its a corrupt system that unfairly favors women temporarily. I assure you they don’t see it that way. The irony is that only monogamy within a patrilineal agrarian society has ever put women in such a powerful bargaining position. Within monogamy males are incentivize to behave more favorably toward females (nice guy traits) and to work harder and produce more wealth — all to (selfishly) acquire the best female (which becomes paramount when you are limited to one). White men are nice and work hard because white women can afford to be choosey. All this goes away when monogamy is destroyed— how ironic for the feminist. The more opportunistic women, niggers, jews behave, the more the hard working white male is disincentivized. No one understands this.
And this guy doesn’t understand that males are equally as corruptible. Males drove the growth of super-powerful socialist governments because they believes the myth that government could erase all social disparities without subsidizing failure. Males voted for redistribution programs like social security and welfare and other gibs programs. Many males supported easy divorce laws and legalized pornography and and end to laws against fornication. They benefited most males at the time, opportunistically.
TLDR Humans will tend to behave opportunistically if they can, and the more opportunism goes unpunished, the more that opportunistic genetic traits will be favored in the population. Cold winters drove white males to be monogamists, monogamy prevented agressive males from flooding the population with their genes, female preference—more heavily weighted in a monogamist regime — selected male traits for hard work and chivalrous ‘simp’ behavior traits. Females are not more opportunistic than men. Utopian government religion subsidizes opportunists at the expense of more productive, conservative strategists.
“Ladies suck” is a low IQ take on what is actually happening here - evolution.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:13:39 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 21:10:36 ago (+2/-0)
And, white males ARE very self controlled. Go try your misandrist tactics with your muzzie Egyptian bf
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 22:09:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 10:39:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Majiqai
[ - ] Majiqai 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 20:31:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 22:23:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 17:59:56 ago (+1/-1)
Appreciate the sentiment and I hope that you will take it for the compliment that it is that I had you in mind with the prior comment.
You are clearly an intelligent and rational person capable of making good decisions, which is why I’m sure arguments such as these may have a tendency to rub you the wrong way.
Let me tell you how much the Mrs. enjoys these conversations :)
It’s a shame and, (though not a perfect sample) as must surely be attested by lady goats being outnumbered by orders of magnitude, ladies of your caliber
Totally agree.
Very insightful. It is precisely some of these traits that are prevalent in women that render them more susceptible to intrusion upon their in-group. I was actually inclined to go into this further on the initial submission, only I don’t have my shit together like @try :)
I remember reading a book about human sexual behavior within the context of evolutionary reproductive strategy, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, by Matt Ridley.
In a nutshell, historically and with few exceptions, women spread their legs for conquerors whereas men will more typically fight to the death. These are, precisely as you assert, psychological traits that make us successful reproductively. No judgement here. The conquerors demonstrated greater worthiness as potential mates by virtue of their conquest. It is what it is.
This predisposition toward allowing, and even inviting, incursions upon their in-group is perhaps most perfectly exemplified by the multitudes of women holding “rapefugees welcome”
I don’t disagree with any of this other than the part about no one understanding. Lots of goats seem to intuit this even if they can’t fully articulate the position.
He may or he may not. The derisive posture he takes leads me to agree with your assertion as the most likely, yet who among us is able to see the giant stick poking out of our own eye as well as we can spot the splinter in others?
communism is for megalomaniacal shadow dictators and losers. Practically no one in between thinks it’s a good idea once they bother to look past the thin veneer of utopianism unless they have some emotional investment in remaining willfully ignorant.
All of this without the aid of woman? I’m willing to take you at your word and I think it pays to look at all of these events within the broader context of the current events of the time. None of this occurred in a vacuum.
Nothing to add here.
Hence the preface to my earlier comment. I didn’t hear that from the guy on the video and I certainly didn’t intend to say as much, though I am aware of an undercurrent of such sentiment being expressed hereabouts.
What I heard on the video was a man describing specific criticisms of unconscious female tendencies.
Ladies do not suck categorically (though some of them do if you’re nice to them, or maybe if they hate their fathers enough ;) ), they are God’s gift to man. Saying “ladies suck” is analogous to criticizing flowers for failing to thrive in a toxic environment. Sure, some will fare better than others and that’s only one side of the equation.
Ultimately, you make many persuasive arguments and I find little to disagree with. I will say that, for my part, it’s less important to try to determine which sex is more predisposed toward morality and it is to focus on specific behaviors and how they manifest as dysfunctions within society.
Simply put, women are more easily exploited on an emotional basis and have less of s stake in maintaining societies. After all, they’ll have progeny either way. It’s only a matter of with whom.
One factor that I think the video and many analyses on the matter of suffrage miss is that votes for all moves the basic unit of atomicity within a society from the family to the individual
As the prevalence of the family and the quality of family life degrades over time, so too does society regress toward the mean of degeneracy which, surely, you have witnessed at least some aspects of within your lifetime.
TLDR:
You’re not bad. Women aren’t bad (in fact, they’re great).
Men are not better than women. Men and women are better than each other in certain capacities.
Men and women are different. Both are exploitable. Some means of exploitation are common to both sexes, while others present primarily in one sex or the other.
Some of the ways in which women are more exploitable are more easily weaponized by those wishing to destroy our society.
Society is better when sexual behavior of both sexes is restrained, ideally with a focus on the family.
Repealing suffrage is seen by many, myself included, as a step toward restoring the balance of power to the family over the individual.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 19:49:11 ago (+3/-0)
Shucks guy!
Had some great comments. Hope they come back
Hmm yes and no. Let’s take beaners which are a great example of a new race being created by invading males and local leg spreaders. Beaners may cry rape but we know better. However it doesn’t mean that all native females were disloyal ibero-philes, only that the traitorous bitches were the most reproductively successful. As males frequently invade foreign lands to opportunistically raid other tribes’ women, the most faithless females become reproductively successful during these events. More loyal and indeed less submissive females are deselected (maybe are even killed) while disloyal and submissive females are favored. Are males selecting for females with easily shifted loyalties over and over again throughout history and then crying “la donna e mobile?” It could be construed that way. ;-)
Lots sense it morally or instinctively but can’t explain it in scientific terms to the “I fucking love science” faggots, who need to have their faces rubbed in it over and over everytime they snidely brag about their selective embrace of evolution.
If only this were true. We’ve been embracing a watered down form of it for decades. Its not pure Marxism because Marxism isnt really possible. But weve accomplished the same thing. A small number of bureacrats from public and private sectors who create no wealth and do not add to efficiency but destroy it, now have totally control. Theres no difference between private and public sector bureacrats other than utopians’ belief that public sector bureacrats are beyond corruption because government is magic.
Not at all but I think men were more in the driver’s seat at the start of the 20th century for sure and arguably up to the 70s or 80s. I think the rise in divorce from the 50s really initially benefitted men until the 80s or 90s when virtually all women had jobs.
Let us say they can be more easily exploited through compassion, and through “mommy fixey” policies which make everything fair for all the “little kiddies” in the country but at who’s expense? It doesn’t occur to women because women don’t produce significant amounts of wealth. White women are about as productive as niggers, generally. Maybe better in some areas and worse in others. But white women never built a great civilization anywhere. If all the women stayed home everything would still get done. Thats been proven before.
White women are not stupider than white men, unlike niggers, but they are not optimized for wealth production. High productivity was a trait that SOME males were selected for— whites, east asians— as a strategy for getting laid and for bequeathing great wealth to their sons. It was never incentivized in women. Theres no reason to think women can contribute equally to wealth production. Most females’ jobs are fake and not contributing to overall prosperity. I don’t think sufferage is necessarily bad, I think that women’s power over the redistribution of males’ work product is totally corrupt. Compensation has been totally divorced from useful work so ever faggot with a paycheck feels entitled but most of them aren’t .
The bureacracy loves economic disinformation because through this it can enslave more productive people and bribe underperformers with confiscated wealth, without too many people catching on. This increases centralized control at the expense of familial and tribal allegiances which are gene based and decentralized. Some people are genetically more productive and efficient and have little or no need for a large bureacracy. Lots of people think they will benefit from the redistribution scheme but only 50% do and all the time the pie gets smaller and smaller since confiscation of work product disincentivizes hard work and honesty.
Bureacrats want to destroy genetic signals for success which make them irrelevant. Its all a disinformaiton scheme. An efficient society has minimal bureacracy because bureacracy generates no wealth and is only informational. Jews expand bureacracies and utilize disinformation to parasitize successful societies and tend to pander to the underperformers and outsiders as allies. But Ive gone on too long.
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus -1 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 20:22:08 ago (+0/-1)
I agree with everything you said apart from a minor quibble with the commie business: I maintain (perhaps idealistically) that proponents are, for the most part, charlatans who know better or losers who won't bother to examine the ideology beyond a superficial basis.
Doesn't make you wrong about the inroads it has been making into our society, however : /
That being said, I can well imagine how, with your *broad* view of the factors in play (see what I did there? :) ), that it could feel insulting to you to hear from others that your right to vote should be revoked based upon your sex, particularly when you are demonstrably smarter than some men. If so, I feel like I can relate to that.
Though I do stand by the statements I made earlier concerning manipulation, to me it's more a matter of putting the votes into the hands of productive members of society and returning the focus to the family than anything else.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 21:37:31 ago (+2/-0)
I literally gufawed and slapped my knee.
Not so much as the assertion that only women and all women are “frivolous decision makers” and “fickle”. Who imported millions of niggers in to the new world? Who indebted our nations to a network of jewish userers? The hyper-competition of colonial superpowers to hoard resources and make easy cash through rum, tobacco, opium, tea, slavery —these were testoterone laden moves made by men long before women could vote. What about that shit show the civil war? Or so many other wars that sent useful young men off to die for greedy elites? That is the wanton destruction of female work product. Women have a 50% stake in society. Our work product is critical. That is apparent since we have farmed it out to the state and sent women to work.
Im willing to have a serious conversation with anyone about the pros and cons of female vote or female politicians or females in the workplace as long as that person comprehends that although some areas of society are better tended to by men, some are better tended to by women, and men are no less corruptible then women. Video guy cherry picks some 20 year old youtuber and extrapolates that all women are betty boop and all men are thomas jefferson. Nuh-uh.
What concerns me is male abuse of power. Males absolutely will abuse power if they can. Women do need checks and balances on male power. Females are abusing their power today. I call it the Karenocracy. But males have of course abused their power before and will likely do so again one day. Its myopic to just say that the problem is just wahmens who are fundamentally stupid and flakey. They aren’t. They have different priorites that make sense for their role in society. The problem is when any one group gains too much power and begins to take advantage of another. Any group— male or female— will be greedy and abusive if given the chance. We are just setting ourselves up for the same problems over and over.
We have to decide what is optimal — what will result in long term stability, high efficiency and prosperity, high value for individual life, balanced with resposibility to the group. Outside of getting rid of groups who are predisposed toward deception, violence and laziness, I think women’s participation in the workplace should be reduced and their work raising children should be reemphisized. Divorce should be outlawed excepting extreme cases, and out of wedlock sex should be illegal and punished with prison. Government should be 1/10th the size it is now and more devolved to state and local levels. Forced charity through government should be outlawed. Voting age should be at least 30. Perhaps we should outlaw billionaires and corporations over a certain size. When certain actors become too powerful there is no improvement in efficiency, only increased corruption.
Damn I wanted to make that one short. But blah blah blah, you’ve encouraged the female to run her mouth off— its all your fault. Rapist.
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 4 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 11:35:18 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] albatrosv15
[ - ] albatrosv15 7 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 11:37:59 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] GoatsAdvocate
[ - ] GoatsAdvocate 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 13:30:31 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user [op] 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:30:56 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] oldblo
[ - ] oldblo 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:13:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 14:16:10 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] IfuckedYerMum
[ - ] IfuckedYerMum 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 19:44:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 03:19:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] IfuckedYerMum
[ - ] IfuckedYerMum 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 19:24:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GoatsAdvocate
[ - ] GoatsAdvocate 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 18, 2021 20:33:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews 3 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:04:10 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Splooge
[ - ] Splooge 4 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:22:22 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:31:25 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Splooge
[ - ] Splooge 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 17:29:21 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 10:28:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BadBoyBubby
[ - ] BadBoyBubby 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 14:24:54 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] 1Icemonkey
[ - ] 1Icemonkey 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 14:37:57 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews 2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:08:39 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BranchThwap
[ - ] BranchThwap 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:23:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] jewsbadnews
[ - ] jewsbadnews 1 point 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:44:06 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] oldblo
[ - ] oldblo 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 16:10:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 20:46:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 3.6 yearsNov 15, 2021 00:00:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Nagasaki
[ - ] Nagasaki -2 points 3.6 yearsNov 14, 2021 15:31:03 ago (+0/-2)