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

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Bruh, you can stop simping. Kicking you out of their thread should have made it clear they aren't going to fuck you.

I was kicked out precisely because I refused to grovel and be their white knight (here I guess).

I still want to post about women’s issues and luckily this thread isn’t as heavily moderated. We can still have a civilized discussion even though we don’t see eye-to-eye.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I disagree that women are facing a reproductively crisis. It is increasingly viable for women to raise a child as a single mother with the western social welfare system and child support laws. Very few reproducing males are required to sustain this system.

Parasitizing male taxpayers are though. You pay for kids that aren't yours whether or not you have some to support already.

I think natural selection is having a field day at the moment. Men, especially those with Peter Pan syndrome are being heavily selected out of the gene pool.

And they're selecting a bunch of third world rapist brownies as our replacement. I'm sure it'll end well.

Women to a lesser extent, because modern medicine allows them to reproduce at their leisure until their 40s.

[insert businesswoman who froze her eggs but all her IVFs failed here]

 

[The Ugly One]

It's funny when you point out whamens voting records (Only the married ones vote for red team) they screech when they have the free agency to not vote for trannies in the woman's bathroom but I guess mean words and being weird just don't have the right vibes and give le ick. It gets even funnier when whamens and male "allies" unironically say it aloud.

The party telling trannies "no" is, by nature, the party with at least a vestigial inclination toward accountability and objective reality, two things that are utterly toxic to single women. So yeah, maybe a decent number of them would kind of like someone to tell the troons to fuck off, but not if it means they might sometimes be told "no" as well.

However, I disagree that women are facing a reproductively crisis.

In 1980, the majority of women over 40 had at least three children. Today, 1 in 5 women that age have no children at all.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

In 1980, the majority of women over 40 had at least three children. Today, 1 in 5 women that age have no children at all.

Did this study also have stats on men over 40 not having children? I would expect it to be higher.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

I still want to post about women’s issues and luckily this thread isn’t as heavily moderated.

Until it is.

We can still have a civilized discussion even though we don’t see eye-to-eye.

That's very true.

 

[Sniperwoof]

I think natural selection is having a field day at the moment. Men, especially those with Peter Pan syndrome are being heavily selected out of the gene pool. Women to a lesser extent, because modern medicine allows them to reproduce at their leisure until their 40s.

There is literally a positive correlation between high intelligence and sexual failure. The more intelligent you are the less likely you are to have had a girlfriend, been married, or had casual sex, maybe women self select for physical traits like high levels of musculature but I see plenty of women with flabby junkies so even that might be dubious but women absolutely do not select for intelligence.

The most sexually successful men in America are unemployed black men with felony records.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

There is literally a positive correlation between high intelligence and sexual failure. The more intelligent you are the less likely you are to have had a girlfriend, been married, or had casual sex, maybe women self select for physical traits like high levels of musculature but I see plenty of women with flabby junkies so even that might be dubious but women absolutely do not select for intelligence.

So you’re saying our future is literally idiocracy.

How recently did this correction develop? Because how do any smart men get born if women do not select for intelligence? Is the implication here that smarter men have reproduced through coercion throughout history and, now that rape and arranged marriages are out-of-style, smart men are no longer reproducing?

 

[Sniperwoof]

How recently did this correction develop? Because how do any smart men get born if women do not select for intelligence? Is the implication here that smarter men have reproduced through coercion throughout history and, now that rape and arranged marriages are out-of-style, smart men are no longer reproducing?

I know you're being deliberately snotty and snide because you think mistakenly think it's clever but yes the average IQ has been rapidly dropping in the Western world and America most prominently for decades.

I am not saying that women should lower their standards or should marry or have sex with people they are not attracted to, I am not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I am simply stating an objective fact that women generally do not select their partners based on intellectual level, nor do men by the way this is not a gendered issue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3283/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-online-iq-scores-century.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576

 

[Mr Bunny]

So you’re saying our future is literally idiocracy.

White people and people in general with above average IQ (100) are a global minority. Now look at every other nation state on earth and wonder.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

I know you're being deliberately snotty and snide because you think mistakenly think it's clever but yes the average IQ has been rapidly dropping in the Western world and America most prominently for decades.

Or maybe there’s more to the explanation than “it’s all women’s fault.” Your own sources say the root cause of this phenomenon is up for debate.

If I wanted to be snide, I’d imply your theory was just an elaborate cope to justify your own lack of reproduction because you obviously consider yourself intelligent and worthy of reproduction.

 

[Sniperwoof]

Or maybe there’s more to the explanation than “it’s all women’s fault.”

Do you know how to read at all?

I literally posted this.

I am not saying that women should lower their standards or should marry or have sex with people they are not attracted to, I am not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I am simply stating an objective fact that women generally do not select their partners based on intellectual level, nor do men by the way this is not a gendered issue.

I also find it very funny that the man hate thread called you a moid and banned you despite you being possibly the biggest suck up I've ever seen, I mean look at this simp behavior.

Just like everyone blames single mothers for the generation raised by women as if those children fell from the sky.

It was always scrotes. We live in an age defined by weak, non-committal men with Peter Pan syndrome.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Or maybe there’s more to the explanation than “it’s all women’s fault.”

Something is very, very wrong with liberal women.

 

[Lords Greatsword]

I was kicked out precisely because I refused to grovel and be their white knight (here I guess).

I still want to post about women’s issues and luckily this thread isn’t as heavily moderated. We can still have a civilized discussion even though we don’t see eye-to-eye.

MY NIGGA YOU GOT FELTED

 

[AgendaPoster]

right to vote, the right to drive, the right to child support/alimony, and the right to deny your husband sex are all quantifiable victories women

They also got you banned from their thread, regardless of your open admissions of feminism "leaning" (read: simping).
The right to remove moids from female spaces.
Gotta love that shit. I even helped myself with 2 users, but as my presence and actions became, uhh, controversial, I just couldn't bring myself to the amount of community infighting that reporting you would've constituted.
In the end, it was not necessary!

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

I mean look at this simp behavior.

I stand by that statement. Single mothers have the grit to raise their children. Absentee fathers do not. Men abandon their children waaay more often than women do.

Women have slowed down their sexual selection this generation to be extra picky because of widespread porn sickness and Peter Pan syndrome among men. I think nature is healing.

I literally posted this.

You did. Several solutions to your problem statement (which you do not support), followed by your problem statement.

I disagree that the reverse flynn effect is caused by women’s sexual selection. I think it’s more likely that the massive influx of low IQ immigrants is more likely to blame.

I just couldn't bring myself to the amount of community infighting that reporting you would've constituted.
In the end, it was not necessary

I disagree that I was breaking any of the thread rules and had faith that Null would allow me to continue to contribute to the on-topic discussion. As Sniperwoof has correctly observed, I really really hate modern men, so I’m not really a good fit for this thread.

The other thread is in a progressive stack purity cycle that is usually hijacked by troons on other sites, so it’ll be interesting to see where it goes.

 

[AgendaPoster]

I disagree that I was breaking any of the thread rules and had faith that Null would allow me to continue to contribute to the on-topic discussion. As Sniperwoof has correctly observed, I really really hate modern men, so I’m not really a good fit for this thread.

The other thread is in a progressive stack purity cycle that is usually hijacked by troons on other sites, so it’ll be interesting to see where it goes.

The thread is segregated based on SEX, not opinions. I got threadbanned for banter and light jokes from it. You can be the bestest most feminist moid on the planet, you should still be banned from there, as those are the rules that they want.
This thread is far more tolerant to dissent, although the regulars will eventually get pissed if you whiteknight too hard. I had controversial takes about women athletes and I am extremely negative towards incel types, and all's relatively fine.
Being a feminist however is totally different, as feminism today is not "rights", it's what you see in the other thread, seething hatred, generalizing, implicit (or explicit) lesbianism and a desire for vengeance. Essentially femceldom.

---

And some funny thread tax, local ho got caught by the local IRS, excuse the machine translation

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Being a feminist however is totally different, as feminism today is not "rights", it's what you see in the other thread, seething hatred, generalizing, implicit (or explicit) lesbianism and a desire for vengeance. Essentially femceldom.

My brand of feminism is still rights-based. More liberty for women allows them to be more efficient sexual selectors. Thousands of years of evolution has enabled women to sniff out genetic dead ends with incredible efficiency.

Almost all my positions can be understood if you realize I’m pro-eugenics. For example, women should be allowed to kill as many of their babies as they want. I think Darwin will punish people enough for killing their viable offspring without needing to get the law involved.

I don’t really care about non-issues like female representation in video games or male loneliness. They are gay and irrelevant.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

I am not saying that women should lower their standards or should marry or have sex with people they are not attracted to, I am not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I am simply stating an objective fact that women generally do not select their partners based on intellectual level, nor do men by the way this is not a gendered issue.

Actually I would argue the opposite: women tend to overvalue intelligence. If a man has a sharp sense of humor and seems to be intelligent and perceptive they tend to be into that, even if that man has other (often glaring) issues.

The problem is the social and economic climate. All the really smart guys I know are either fucked up at this point, or have followed a white collar career path that will inevitably lead to sitting behind a computer ordering around a bunch of indians all day (they all do nowadays), which needless to say doesn't foster a great social life.

I'm willing to bet that if you were to do a survey of all these intelligent people, you'd find they suffer from mood disorders way more too, which means they're going to be less ambitious and more likely to isolate themselves.

Women are the least of the issue here, because their biology is exactly the same as its always been. It's the environment and the options people have for relating to each other that's inimical.

Also yes, IQ drop is probably more likely because of immigrants.

Women have slowed down their sexual selection this generation to be extra picky because of widespread porn sickness and Peter Pan syndrome among men. I think nature is healing.

If they were actually extra picky there wouldn't be so many more single mothers, with children from guys like Pat Tomlinson.

Your supposition is just as gay. Women are reproducing less because having families and children has become an absolute tribulation with a lot of cost and not a lot of physical benefit, and because app based dating is so pervasive.
When you've got no organic way to develop rapport between people and all you've got is what amounts to a dating resume, of course they're going to be picky, just like how it always works with resumes.

If we ignored apps (which is what most retard discourse fixates on), there's not much evidence that women are any more picky than they ever were.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Almost all my positions can be understood if you realize I’m pro-eugenics. For example, women should be allowed to kill as many of their babies as they want. I think Darwin will punish people enough for killing their viable offspring without needing to get the law involved.

Darwinism should means that the strong should eventually rule over the weak, and eugenics should select for genetic fitness, i.e. athleticism and intellect combined. What we have now is the dysgenic sneakily ruling, and a progressively dysgenic society below them. The strong are barely even existing or engaging. We have 70 yrs old deathfats running for office, instead of 40 yrs old athletes or intellectuals.
Women have selected really, really bad the last decades, and they are utterly insane (in average, statistics, not "but this individual") when it comes to anything progressive, and the very base of the liberal coalition that always promotes weakness and protects the minority groups.

 

[The Ugly One]

So you’re saying our future is literally idiocracy.

How recently did this correction develop? Because how do any smart men get born if women do not select for intelligence? Is the implication here that smarter men have reproduced through coercion throughout history and, now that rape and arranged marriages are out-of-style, smart men are no longer reproducing?

Smart men used to get born because smart women didn't used to chemically sterilize themselves all through their 20s so they could finish graduate degrees.

Your supposition is just as gay. Women are reproducing less because having families and children has become an absolute tribulation

Women are reproducing less because sex is fun, babies get in the way of having more of it, and birth control exists. Having children was a much bigger tribulation in the 12th century, but there was no pill to disrupt a woman's fertility cycle.

My brand of feminism is still rights-based. More liberty for women allows them to be more efficient sexual selectors. Thousands of years of evolution has enabled women to sniff out genetic dead ends with incredible efficiency.

Millions (not thousands) of years did not equip human beings with an ability to rationalize their way into procreation. We simply have a sexual instinct, same as the animals do, and that was enough. But now rationality enables us to sterilize ourselves, and we do it, because our brains evolved to see future unpleasantness and toil and stave it off, but not really to see past our own death and care and avoid the end of our own bloodline. That had never been necessary.