What do women want? (for the future of humanity)

[Fester Chavez]

I am, at this point. kind of familiar with the two sides of the question on what is wrong with the modern Western world. Women say it's men's fault. Men say it's women and weak men's fault.
W: Men are responsible for the vast majority of violent and sexual crimes, and the tranny versions of them intrude on the resources that are meant to mitigate the biological differences between the sex.
M: Women direct their sexual attention toward the upper echelons of men more than men do to women, causing an imbalance. This grows the population of losing men who have no investment in civilization. This state of things was all started by the sexual revolution in the '60s, which was allowed to develop due to men not being strong enough to recognize its poison and put a stop to it. The growing population of the uninvested was further bolstered by single-motherhood that the sexual revolution promoted. The uninvested then go on to do most of the violent and sexual crimes that women complain about.

I think I am mostly familiar with the solution most red-pill men suggest for how to fix things: push things back to the culture before the sexual revolution (and perhaps remove some of the more societally-uninvested races from our country).
But I don't really know what solution women have for how to fix things. My intuitive solution would be to either change men or remove them from society. It'd be a solution with a heavy trans-humanist bent. Reducing men to a collection of sperm genelines, or genetically-modifying men so that they aren't inclined toward the behavior that women complain about.
But, from what I've seen, most radical-feminists are heavily against trans-humanism. I understand why, but that still leaves the question open.

What do women want?

 

[blur]

 

[Idiot Doom Spiral]

Women haven’t a fucking clue what they want.

Women have voted overwhelmingly for sexually liberal policies harking back to the 60s, yet screamed foul when those same policies gradually paved the way for troons to dominate their spaces.

Women constantly metoo and bemoan men when they display masculinity and demonstrate sexual prowess; but at the same time, attempt to shame any man they are in confrontation with, judging and insulting them by their supposed lack of masculinity and sexual prowess (‘incel, can’t get laid, small cock’ etc).

Women want complete equality yet are screaming at the prospect of being eligible for the service draft.

In short, women want everything their way yet want to be responsible for nothing.

 

[DumbDude43]

But I don't really know what solution women have for how to fix things. My intuitive solution would be to either change men or remove them from society. It'd be a solution with a heavy trans-humanist bent. Reducing men to a collection of sperm genelines, or genetically-modifying men so that they aren't inclined toward the behavior that women complain about.

that is not what they want, that is a "fully automated luxury gay space communism" fantasy meme lol

what they want is a society where men are subjugated serfs who do all the unpleasant work and hard labor while women hold all the power and control all the resources.
they want all the upsides and benefits that men posessed in patriarchal society, without any of the downsides and drawbacks that come with it. all of the power, none of the responsibility, and of course absolutely no concern for the total lack of sustainability their dream society suffers from.

 

[Dialtone]

If you want to see the end goal of what women want, look at South Korea

 

[JamusActimus]

No women and very few men can look at the bigger picture and look beyond their individual self.

It's mostly about making pp feel good, getting the dopamine flowing and getting validation.

Your soul is tiny if you can only look at your own interests and those of a few others.

 

[Devout Muslim]

Women want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[InventingH4na]

I don't know what the average radical-feminist wants and I doubt they know either. Most of them need Jesus or we go for a society like Psycho Pass where dangerous people are killed before they can infect others with their mental diseases. The average single mother on Facebook seems to want a traditional man that will handle everything but not traditional gender roles as a woman. Personally think that a traditional woman attracts a traditional man so I can start by working on myself.

 

[The Punished Mitch]

More than anything women want to live a life completely free from consequence or accountability in a world where they ( they individually, not women in general - women don't like sharing ) rule as supreme queen matriarch over a society with a caste system that makes India look like an egalitarian paradise ( to prevent undesirable men from thinking they can be anything but work slaves hidden from sight ), a police state that makes North Korea seem like an anarchist utopia ( to punish undesirable men from looking at them or indeed existing within their field of vision ) and eugenics so brutal even Nazi high command would get sweaty ( to cull any excess undesirable men ).

But since the queen matriarch part won't happen the most important part is the deep desire to live completely consequence free.

 

[Fester Chavez]

Actually, I just remembered a matriarchal strategy I read while lurking on Ovrit a couple years ago.
I think the model is men and women partner up solely for the purpose and duration of the act of reproduction. Then the matriarch's estate takes care of the mother and her child, and her brothers (the child's uncles) are the primary male caregivers and male role models for the child. The father is given only the barest of influences over his child's life.

I don't know how viable this is, or whether it has any historical precedent, but I remember finding it fairly intriguing.
The women in the thread didn't seem to be all that impressed by her vision though.

 

[DumbDude43]

Actually, I just remembered a matriarchal strategy I read while lurking on Ovrit a couple years ago.
I think the model is men and women partner up solely for the purpose and duration of the act of reproduction. Then the matriarch's estate takes care of the mother and her child, and her brothers (the child's uncles) are the primary male caregivers and male role models for the child. The father is given only the barest of influences over his child's life.

I don't know how viable this is, or whether it has any historical precedent, but I remember finding it fairly intriguing.
The women in the thread didn't seem to be all that impressed by her vision though.

where does the money come from in that arrangement? do they expect the absent father to simply send free money forever?

 

[Fester Chavez]

where does the money come from in that arrangement? do they expect the absent father to simply send free money forever?

I think the idea is that, the uncles are the primary breadwinners for the whole shebang.
With the uncles being partially genetically-invested in their sisters' children.
Although, thinking about it, I do see some potential holes.
The uncles are less genetically invested than the fathers, and in order to have a growing population, the uncles would still need to be AS invested in the childrens development as the father is in a more classical arrangement.
This may be too much to ask of men.
So more social/legal force may be required to maintain the arrangement than is required in our system.

 

[God of Nothing]

the greeks knew the answer to this years ago

 

[DumbDude43]

I think the idea is that, the uncles are the primary breadwinners for the whole shebang.
With the uncles being partially genetically-invested in their sisters' children.
Although, thinking about it, I do see some potential holes.
The uncles are less genetically invested than the fathers, and in order to have a growing population, the uncles would still need to be AS invested in the childrens development as the father is in a more classical arrangement.
This may be too much to ask of men.
So more social/legal force may be required to maintain the arrangement than is required in our system.

so this all depends on everybody being part of a large and intact family that lives together forever?
how is this supposed to work for women who don't have loads of brothers ready to play stepdad for her children? or women with no brothers at all?

 

[Fester Chavez]

so this all depends on everybody being part of a large and intact family that lives together forever?
how is this supposed to work for women who don't have loads of brothers ready to play stepdad for her children? or women with no brothers at all?

Yeah.
I think there is a decent historical and even present-day cultural precedent for large patriarchal families that live together indefinitely. I'm not knowledgable enough to come up with examples though.
Concerning the matter of brothers. It could be a collectively understood, common good for a family generation to just keep poppin' kids out until they have enough girls and boys to make the next generation.
My guess is they'd want the amount of children to be atleast as many as the previous generation, and they'd want the number of boys or girls to be atleast half the previous generation. Although, there would likely be a bias toward boys since they're the limiting factor concerning household income.
There may also be a bias toward boys if the arrangement is too unnatural, and they're inclined toward opting out in some way or another.

Actually I had another potentially connective thought.
I'd been hearing a meme about "longhousing" recently, and I did some very light research on it, that it's a large matriarchal family under one roof, where the men are cowed into subservience by women.
Is this kind of arrangement what would've been prevalent in longhouse societies?

 

[Fester Chavez]

Women haven’t a fucking clue what they want.

Women have voted overwhelmingly for sexually liberal policies harking back to the 60s, yet screamed foul when those same policies gradually paved the way for troons to dominate their spaces.

Women constantly metoo and bemoan men when they display masculinity and demonstrate sexual prowess; but at the same time, attempt to shame any man they are in confrontation with, judging and insulting them by their supposed lack of masculinity and sexual prowess (‘incel, can’t get laid, small cock’ etc).

Women want complete equality yet are screaming at the prospect of being eligible for the service draft.

In short, women want everything their way yet want to be responsible for nothing.

Concerning the male solution to the problem. Was pre-1960 life for women as bad as women often suggest it is?
I can empathise with some of the more visceral problems they dealt with--abusive husbands with (apparently) no legal way of escape and forced pregnancies/back-alley abortions.
But I've got a feeling that modernity is worse than pre-1960, and I found a website that seems to confirm it, though it doesn't seem to be well-sourced: https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

[Audit]

I think the idea is that, the uncles are the primary breadwinners for the whole shebang.
With the uncles being partially genetically-invested in their sisters' children.
Although, thinking about it, I do see some potential holes.
The uncles are less genetically invested than the fathers, and in order to have a growing population, the uncles would still need to be AS invested in the childrens development as the father is in a more classical arrangement.
This may be too much to ask of men.
So more social/legal force may be required to maintain the arrangement than is required in our system.

So you've created a system where no male-female long term relationships are permitted outside of the family. Is this some kind of incest fetish?

 

[Fester Chavez]

So you've created a system where no male-female long term relationships are permitted outside of the family. Is this some kind of incest fetish?

It's not my system, but yeah that is an unknown. I don't remember the creator mentioning where non-reproductive sex fits into the system.
I tried looking for the source, but I think it mustve been deleted from the website at some point.

I did find a transcription on Ovrit for a theoretical matriarchal society. It was a bit TL;DR, but I got the premise that it's basically communism with emphasis on "commune" or "familial clans".
As is usual with communist fantasies, it doesn't account well for human nature, supposing that people and groups of people will always cooperate for the good of society.
It also supposes that nature's primary attribute is "giving", and plants that as the key attribute of the society--"gift-giving".
The goods of a clan are collected together, and gifted as needed by the matriarch to the people, and occasionally clans come together and distribute amongst each other.
Source: https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberati...-matriarchy-as-a-radical-alternative-by-dr-he

 

[DumbDude43]

It's not my system, but yeah that is an unknown. I don't remember the creator mentioning where non-reproductive sex fits into the system.
I tried looking for the source, but I think it mustve been deleted from the website at some point.

I did find a transcription on Ovrit for a theoretical matriarchal society. It was a bit TL;DR, but I got the premise that it's basically communism with emphasis on "commune" or "familial clans".
As is usual with communist fantasies, it doesn't account well for human nature, supposing that people and groups of people will always cooperate for the good of society.
It also supposes that nature's primary attribute is "giving", and plants that as the key attribute of the society--"gift-giving".
The goods of a clan are collected together, and gifted as needed by the matriarch to the people, and occasionally clans come together and distribute amongst each other.
Source: https://ovarit.com/o/WomensLiberati...-matriarchy-as-a-radical-alternative-by-dr-he

Existing national states must be dissolved in two directions: on one hand, in the direction of the autonomous regions, which are the basis for life; on the other hand, in the direction of a global structure with a purely executive status which has no state power.

how can anything have 'executive status' without state power
how do you enforce the decisions your executive makes without state power
brainless nigger

The matriarchal principle here is that such affinity groups are generally initiated, supported and led by women. It is they who are creating the mother-children-Earth communities and cooperatives, which are new matriarchal communities in the true sense. The determining criteria are the needs of women and children, who are the future of humanity, rather than the power-and-virility aspirations of men. In such new matri-clans women will fully integrate men as their brothers, husbands, lovers, and sons, but according to a different value system that is based on reciprocal care and love, rather than on power.
In a community like this, men also live better than they do in patriarchy.

"dude all you need is peace and love haha"

At the spiritual-cultural level, it is mandatory that all hierarchical religions with belief in transcendent divinities and claims of absolute truth – which have deeply debased the world; the earth, humanity, and especially women – must be rejected. Rather, we are looking at a new sacralization of the world, consonant with the matriarchal perspective that the entire world, with everything in it and on it, is divine. This leads to freely and creatively honoring and celebrating everything. In this way, matriarchal spirituality can permeate everything and can become once again a normal part of everyday life.

"you will reject all religions and instead worship the hecking valid mother earth! because... because you just WILL, okay?!"
these people are unbelievably stupid holy shit

 

[Otterly]

But I don't really know what solution women have for how to fix things. My intuitive solution would be to either change men or remove them from society. It'd be a solution with a heavy trans-humanist bent. Reducing men to a collection of sperm genelines, or genetically-modifying men so that they aren't inclined toward the behavior that women complain about.

That sounds horrendous. Removing men weakens the society. Women arent safe when all the men have had their balls chopped off, ffs. The society just gets invaded by men with balls who enslave the women.
The solution is long term thinking being prioritised over short term pleasure and hedonistic gain.
Realistically the only positive way out is a new frontier to explore, like space or something. Otherwise it’s the usual cycle of decline, and oopppsy daisy here’s the invading hordes