Official Kiwifarms Woman-Hate Thread - DO NOT post about OTHER USERS or OTHER THREADS from THIS WEBSITE.

[Cheeseknife]

chances are most dates you go on are just free meals for her

I live in America, though. Since we're all supposed to be equal here, she needs to pay for her own meal.

Or mine if she gets paid more. Fair is fair.

 

[The Ugly One]

The foids are in their corner and we have our spot that is cooler than theirs anyway.

Foids always want into men's spaces, because our spaces are cooler than theirs. They never quite understand that the reason our spaces are better than theirs is because they aren't here.

you forgot the part where you have to spend a lot of money to get them to even come close to this
making you wonder why not just buy a prostitute

chances are most dates you go on are just free meals for her

I'm talking about when you're literally living with a woman.

 

[Buttigieg2020]

I live in America, though. Since we're all supposed to be equal here, she needs to pay for her own meal.

Or mine if she gets paid more. Fair is fair.

I actually did have a girlfriend once that insisted on doing that. It was very nice.

I hope she’s doing well.

 

[God of Nothing]

I'm talking about when you're literally living with a woman.

if it doesn't go away when you're living with them why bother?

 

[Clem Fandango]

I take it all back, women are kinda neat.

 

[Cheeseknife]

I take it all back, women are kinda neat.

Well, that settles it. The thread has finally concluded.

 

[Spud]

chances are most dates you go on are just free meals for her

Why are you taking her out to eat in the first place. Food is GF privilege, coffee and drinks are for first dates not getting a meal together, no one wants to fuck on a full stomach.

 

[California Newt]

This isn't so much a woman-hate post as a woman-functionality-question post, but I figure I should put it here since I'm banned from Beauty Parlor for the month and I'm seeing a lot of similar "woman-argumentation style" posts.

I won't go into too much detail, but the gist is that someone in Men Hate had the idea that husbands are obsolete in modern society, and I made the point that you need a more decentralized distribution of male physical and social power for women to be comfortable and safe in society (men walking women down the street in bad areas; women not getting harassed by mobs of thirsty creepazoids etc). It can't all just be condensed in the police and government, because that leaves too many gaps.

They responded with anecdotes and examples of men not defending women in public (rape trains in the UK, boyfriends not standing up to muggers etc.), and accused me of "threatening women into marriage rather than selling them on it". Lots of "ick" posting (to the credit of the woman I was responding to, she did not do this).

I don't care whether kiwi women get married or not. I only posted because someone seemed to be incorrect in an interesting way, but they (the others) kept personalizing it.

At first I thought it was just dishonesty, but then I remembered that I've played board games against women (some way smarter than than me) and they never responded to being "ganged up on" when they're ahead well. They always seemed to take it personally, especially if their boyfriend was involved. If you think about it, you need to adopt the same sort of objective depersonalized frame for games as you do for honest argumentation.

Do women struggle with this? It would help explain some comments I've seen from philosophers like Emerson about women being more "immediate" or something. Are women, generally speaking, less inclined towards (or capable of) an impersonal frame of reference when the context calls for it? In my opinion, you're not really "yourself" except in those times when you shed your social context and become "nobody".

They seem to struggle with the Genetic Fallacy.

 

[Spud]

They responded with anecdotes and examples of men not defending women in public

Wow, I wonder what reasons would lead to that?

It's fun to watch them squirm in real time when you mention why.

 

[California Newt]

Wow, I wonder what reasons would lead to that?
View attachment 6020180
It's fun to watch them squirm in real time when you mention why.

It's even more basic than that. My argument was that they're not just there in case the violence starts; they're there as a deterrent. If what they say about "being with a man not making women any safer" were true, you'd expect to see that reflected in the numbers. I would assume that if someone were to hash it out, you'd see a lot more attacks on single women than on couples (or women and relatives/simps, as the point is just having a man there).

But that doesn't even seem to enter their heads. It's just videos and anecdotes of particular instances of men not defending women, as though that establishes some kind of trend.

One of the posts that I made earlier in BP was asking what female friendship is like compared to make friendship. I got some interesting answers, and they didn't appear to be familiar with the common-purpose-and-passion-as-expressed-through-collaboration-and-competition-towards-that-purpose oriented nature of more serious male friendships. It's possible that I worded the question poorly, though. The depersonalized frame is necessary for that dynamic, too; I wonder if they can have that kind of relationship generally.

 

[bile demon]

My rejection of feminism isn't based in religion.

Mine is.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

I take it all back, women are kinda neat.

Remember this song from the 2000s? This is your techno song.

 

[Spud]

It's just videos and anecdotes of particular instances of men not defending women, as though that establishes some kind of trend.

There is the trend that you as a guy will get punished if you get involved hence the photo of Daniel Perry. It was the norm when you didn't get thrown to the wolves when you helped but now you'll get thrown to the wolves by the same whamen who complain that guys don't defend them. Don't get involved unless it's family or you're actively fucking her, random whamen can protect themselves.

 

[God of Nothing]

One of the posts that I made earlier in BP was asking what female friendship is like compared to make friendship. I got some interesting answers, and they didn't appear to be familiar with the common-purpose-and-passion-as-expressed-through-collaboration-and-competition-towards-that-purpose oriented nature of more serious male friendships. It's possible that I worded the question poorly, though. The depersonalized frame is necessary for that dynamic, too; I wonder if they can have that kind of relationship generally.

>female
>friendship
Women look at guys being close as them being gay. That should tell you all you need to know. I've seen every best friend a female relative have turn out to be the person they hate the most. Female friendship is a positive acquaintance at best. Women encourage each other to do unhealthy things to look better for not doing them. It's why every pack has the fat chick. Hell, just look at fucking Beauty Parlor.

 

[California Newt]

Don't get involved unless it's family or you're actively fucking her

Interesting that you mention that, because it came up in the conversation. They kept using examples of strangers not helping women, when the conversation was specifically about the utility of having a man in your life (as in, someone invested in you who is not a stranger). Only one of them posted an example of someone who may have been a romantic partner with the woman.

The inability or unwillingness of many of them to stay within the scope of the argument was very odd. That might just be a general dishonesty thing though; not something applicable to all women outside of "man hate" threads.

@God of Nothing, That's what their responses seemed like to me. Their responses about female friendship sounded a lot like amicable casual acquaintanceship; the female version of the kind of guys you'd watch YouTube videos and go to McDonalds with, but nothing much deeper than that. I'm sure that it must happen, but maybe it's rare.

I haven't really sat down and thought about women much until recently, curious about what's going on with those critters

 

[Spud]

The inability or unwillingness of many of them to stay within the scope of the argument was very odd.

First time arguing with a women? It's alright, we all thought they were being honest as well. They are it's just that they've lied to themselves so much they believe it to be truth.

They kept using examples of strangers not helping women,

It's funny that, I got told growing up that I'm not entitled to a woman's body but at the same time women are apparently told they're entitled to a man's body to provide them security.

 

[Bungdit Din]

Arguing with wahmens? Like debating a Leftist. Pointless. Because they're children, intellectually. So, to any question, you give them the universal answer:

Because I said so.

And if they want you to shift in some way, tell them:

Make me.

 

[AngryAboutInternets]

So, to any question, you give them the universal answer:

Because I said so.

And if they want you to shift in some way, tell them:

Make me.

This technique works on basically everyone who is a dipshit on the internet, by the way. You will be amazed at how much intellectual energy you can save by just refusing to engage with retards and disingenuous fucks.

"Can I get a source for that?" Yes the source is that it's obviously true.
"You need to disprove my argument." You need to stop being a faggot.
"You're a racist/sexist/whatever." Not only that, but I'm also a Rwandan genocide denier. Cry about it.
etc. They have absolutely no defense against this, if you refuse to take them seriously all they will do is seethe endlessly and impotently

I always encourage more people to engage in this style of behavior for retarded internet debates because people need to stop pretending that they mean anything past the first exchange or two. If they say their piece, and you say your piece, and you both disagree, nothing is going to change no matter what else is said. Just exchange slurs and go back to doing something more enjoyable.

 

[California Newt]

First time arguing with a women?

I've never really had a reason to.

Worldly immortality is through the continuation of a man's line: to men, women have an aroma of immortality—that's their power over us (and the regime's power through women). If your worldview has room for immortality from other sources, though, then women are no longer this exclusive elixir of life that's absolutely psychologically necessary. Unless you have a good reason to be with one, they're more of a bad habit—like cigarettes or nail-biting. That's the capacity in which I've always interacted with women: at most, they've been a guilty pleasure. Not a lot of room for arguments to break out there.

I've been thinking about them more seriously recently, though: specifically, I've been thinking about how human closeness works, and I think I have it mostly figured out for men—for women, though, it seems to be a little more complicated if not just for the fact that the sources of information don't seem as reliable. In addition to being a fun subject to poke around and try to figure out, it'll be useful in case it turns out I'm not cut out to be an ascetic (which is highly likely).

Something that a lot of the women in BP agreed with me on is that many men don't understand what women even are, and it creates problems where men expect women to be men psychologically. Some men basically think women are gay men hit with some kind of woman beam, then get mad when that isn't the case. Of course, you can't expect women themselves to be cognizant of all the differences either—they've never been men. It takes some digging, which has been fun so far.

I know that men and women do have the capacity to appreciate the same virtues/aesthetics and collaborate towards them together, which in my view is the basis for human closeness. Perhaps it's just that when women do so, it's inextricably tethered to their interpersonal context—maybe they can't "shed" that in the same way, or just aren't as inclined to. Needs more investigation.

 

[Bungdit Din]

Wherefore wahmens?

Solipsism, narcissism and psychopathy. Women are amoral, and don't suffer under the burden of conscience. They're neither good, nor bad, they just are. Like the weather, and earthquakes, and asteroid impacts...

This technique works on basically everyone who is a dipshit on the internet, by the way. You will be amazed at how much intellectual energy you can save by just refusing to engage with retards and disingenuous fucks.

"Can I get a source for that?" Yes the source is that it's obviously true.
"You need to disprove my argument." You need to stop being a faggot.
"You're a racist/sexist/whatever." Not only that, but I'm also a Rwandan genocide denier. Cry about it.
etc. They have absolutely no defense against this, if you refuse to take them seriously all they will do is seethe endlessly and impotently

I always encourage more people to engage in this style of behavior for retarded internet debates because people need to stop pretending that they mean anything past the first exchange or two. If they say their piece, and you say your piece, and you both disagree, nothing is going to change no matter what else is said. Just exchange slurs and go back to doing something more enjoyable.

I'm mildly embarrassed that it took me so long to come to this conclusion. I'm a fool for thinking, or giving the benefit of doubt, that (so many) 'debates' were/are about the exchange of ideas, or persuasion, when it's simply about power, and achieving submission. I'd sooner Minecraft the fucks that try that than waste my breath talking to them.