Woman-hate thread: "Women are crazy."
Man-hate: "We should all rejoice when men explode into a fine crimson mist and babies should be chopped into tiny pieces if they're male and men should all die and hate hate hate hate"
Tbh, sometimes it is necessary, especially if we are talking about things that can be dealbreakers. Like for instance, I will not date a woman who supports abortion, the British, or Fine Gael. It's just not wort it.
I disagree. Your woman should/will adopt your views over time. The default position for basic bitches is whatever is peddled on her social media feed. Most women don’t really feel strongly about things one way or the other, it’s just they’re told that if they don’t follow an exact set of values then millions of trannies and pee oh cees will die instantaneously. If you are a strong enough man, then she will eventually adopt your views because she never felt strongly about this shit to begin with. Be the lighthouse in her life.
Fair, though I find it delicious that madwomen love to claim men "want to kill women" when the only sex-based lust for blood I've heard in my entire life comes exclusively from women. Projection is the root of so much in life.
I disagree. Your woman should/will adopt your views over time. The default position for basic bitches is whatever is peddled on her social media feed. Most women don’t really feel strongly about things one way or the other, it’s just they’re told that if they don’t follow an exact set of values then millions of trannies and pee oh cees will die instantaneously. If you are a strong enough man, then she will eventually adopt your views because she never felt strongly about this shit to begin with. Be the lighthouse in her life.
Fair, though I find it delicious that madwomen love to claim men "want to kill women" when the only sex-based lust for blood I've heard in my entire life comes exclusively from women. Projection is the root of so much in life.
The feminist narrative has always been batfuck insanity. It flies in the face of reason. None of it can stand up to the shrieking of bored upper and upper middle class women. It's blown me away that they get away with even half the claims they do. Remember:
There are no double-standards. Women are the same as men.
If there are double-standards, it's because they're a good thing. Women need double-standards because they're oppressed.
The Women Are Wonderful effect is well-documented. Double-standards basically always favor women, because humans are predisposed to treat women better.
But double-standards always favoring women is a good thing. Because they're oppressed and treated so poorly. Which is why it's important they get treated better everywhere. Because they're treated worse everywhere.
It's a circular contradiction that consists of one step. Yet you'll see people nod along to it. WAW is a hell of a thing.
The feminist narrative has always been batfuck insanity. It flies in the face of reason. None of it can stand up to the shrieking of bored upper and upper middle class women. It's blown me away that they get away with even half the claims they do. Remember:
There are no double-standards. Women are the same as men.
If there are double-standards, it's because they're a good thing. Women need double-standards because they're oppressed.
The Women Are Wonderful effect is well-documented. Double-standards basically always favor women, because humans are predisposed to treat women better.
But double-standards always favoring women is a good thing. Because they're oppressed and treated so poorly. Which is why it's important they get treated better everywhere. Because they're treated worse everywhere.
It's a circular contradiction that consists of one step. Yet you'll see people nod along to it. WAW is a hell of a thing.
Tá, this is why I just don't believe in feminism. Sure, women are people and have rights and everything but the idea that men and women are the same or have the same roles in society is absurd. Men are fathers, women are mothers. Men go out and work, fight, die for God, family, and country wile women stay at home and do something far more important: ensure that we have a future as a people by raising boys into honorable young men and girls into pious young women.
Too lazy to quote 9 different posts so I'll just respond blindly at once:
I no longer have any friends due to me making the decision to cut out shitty people from my life, so I probably should just find friends in the first place.
Legit, all of them either were completely alone or extremely desperate dudes in their early 20's with fat single mothers.
I'm aware I'm not much of a catch myself but Jesus fucking Christ it's amazing what level "men" will stoop to at times.
None of them had sisters or family, let alone female friends other than their slampiggers.
I just figured I'd ask my question in here since it seems to be a thread where men who are/have struggled in the past with friends, relationships whatever the fuck could provide input. I have literally nobody to talk to IRL.
Infighting in this thread is not allowed. I have banned 3 accounts until next week. The one account created in November and has made about 42 posts per day since I've just banned for being a sock.
I'm really, really sick of reminding people of this so I'm not doing it anymore.
The feminist narrative has always been batfuck insanity. It flies in the face of reason. None of it can stand up to the shrieking of bored upper and upper middle class women. It's blown me away that they get away with even half the claims they do. Remember:
There are no double-standards. Women are the same as men.
If there are double-standards, it's because they're a good thing. Women need double-standards because they're oppressed.
The Women Are Wonderful effect is well-documented. Double-standards basically always favor women, because humans are predisposed to treat women better.
But double-standards always favoring women is a good thing. Because they're oppressed and treated so poorly. Which is why it's important they get treated better everywhere. Because they're treated worse everywhere.
It's a circular contradiction that consists of one step. Yet you'll see people nod along to it. WAW is a hell of a thing.
The crucial puzzle piece you're missing here is the way in which the foid experiences the world. You can't use objective reality to test the claims a foid makes because the foid operates solely based on feelings. The mistake you, as a man, are making is that you assume that foids consider all 4 billion or so men to be their fellow human beings - they do not. The average communications studies foid considers herself oppressed and at a disadvantage because, to the foid, only Fortune 500 C-suite men with 6-pack abs, 7-figure incomes and 8-inch cocks ( flaccid ) actually exist as male human beings.
An upper-middle class foid is perfectly comfortable going all the way down into the bowels of a coal mine to educate the workers on male privilege because the only male in the company she considers an actual human being is the CEO.
I just figured I'd ask my question in here since it seems to be a thread where men who are/have struggled in the past with friends, relationships whatever the fuck could provide input. I have literally nobody to talk to IRL.
Too lazy to quote 9 different posts so I'll just respond blindly at once:
I no longer have any friends due to me making the decision to cut out shitty people from my life, so I probably should just find friends in the first place.
Legit, all of them either were completely alone or extremely desperate dudes in their early 20's with fat single mothers.
I'm aware I'm not much of a catch myself but Jesus fucking Christ it's amazing what level "men" will stoop to at times.
None of them had sisters or family, let alone female friends other than their slampiggers.
I just figured I'd ask my question in here since it seems to be a thread where men who are/have struggled in the past with friends, relationships whatever the fuck could provide input. I have literally nobody to talk to IRL.
Quite honestly, like others said, control your spergery in public. You can unleash your power level when you make friends again but for now filter everything you say and do through a 90% sperg filter, high yield. And yeah go find friends again, not to hook up with girls or get dates mind you, just do it cause having good friends will increase your quality of life. < this will likely result in you improving in other ways too.
Feminism is nothing but a luxury belief system. The idea that we should reorient society towards favoring people who are smaller, weaker, and dumber is counterintuitive on all levels. Like if some aliens landed on Earff and wanted to know how things worked, there’d be no logical explanation for feminism. So since there’s no actual foundation of logic in feminism, they are free to concoct whatever crazy bullshit they feel like. Feminism is the astrology of ideologies.
This is inadvisable, if you mean that you've explicitly cut off all contact with them and told them so. Why actively cut people out rather than just talking to them less?
Everything else in my post is going to be dependent on this next clause: you need to be grinding levels in your speech skill. That means talking to people who don't have autism—or at least people with less severe autism (you can claw your way up the ranks)—in low-risk environments, such as online voice chats.
This is how I have become functional (relatively).
Female psychology operates primarily (although not exclusively) on a cognitive plane that autistic people are barred from (unless a serious effort is made to understand it). I've gone into more detail on this here (you can skip the first half about gay anal sex). I also recommend Emerson's essay on Women (you can stop reading when he starts putting forth arguments for Women's suffrage). There are plenty of women capable of making reasoned and level-headed arguments, but this is about understanding their baseline operating system.
If you're not competent at talking to men, you're going to have a very hard time with women (who are more subtle).
I'll include some more sperg-friendly thoughts on women in spoilers:
Women can be creative, but they don't need to be (to the same degree); they can get pregnant and reproduce/nurture an image of the world within themselves. Men struggle with the external world more, and in the process define the boundaries of the world that women operate in. Women don't enforce the borders, maintain the laws, or fight the wars. If they're involved, it's either in a token capacity or as middle-managers. This isn't a mark against them; it's just not their area.
Men consume the world more fully (through more fully struggling with it), and women consume the world through men (as an image, along with the degree to which they as women also struggle with the world). By "more fully", I don't mean more intensely: I mean with more variety—men experience a broader range of struggles by virtue of the fact that it's their responsibility to define and defend the boundaries of the inhabited world. I've heard it argued that women also have a supplementary role in perfecting and refining that world—this is where a lot of their creativity comes in, although it could be argued to be an extension of their creative nurturing faculty of which pregnancy is the in-principle core.
Men often have an a-social lust for the world that women are less likely, though not necessarily unable, to understand.
Struggling with the world is the same as consuming it or being impregnated by it, and the creative process is the reproduction of what you've consumed according to the pattern of what's innate in your individual personality. I'm saying that any potential deficits in women's ability to struggle—to be creative—compared to men is made up for by their direct consumption of men, and through pregnancy.
Monasticism is the other option (the creation—like man—being an image of the mind of God), but I'm not totally sure how that works for women compared to men yet. I've got some books by abbesses to finish.
From my giant spegpost in the same thread:
Heterosexual men are very outwardly-oriented creatures. They tend not to really make the intuitive connection between the outward world and their inward world. They don't think about the link between the aesthetic of what they're pursuing, and the isomorphic corresponding potency within themselves that allows and motivates them to engage and succeed in that pursuit. They don't understand that the things they love are a holographic projection of themselves, and that a woman might prefer the source over the projection.
This is why poets all come off as at least a little gay—their job is to connect those dots. Men love each other fraternally for the same reason that women love men romantically—the difference is that men see it as "Oh, cool. This guy gets it." The man always conceptualizes it as a mutual interest in a third thing that's located out in the macrocosm, rather than in something within the microcosm of the other guy. At most, such as in a mentorship relationship, it's something that comes through the other guy from the macrocosm. Masculine intercommunion is praxeological rather than physical.
See this [the false feminist claim that women don't need men] is what got me to enter that thread. The denial of this obvious fact, in the personal as well as societal context, is what got my attention.
I'm gonna spitball something:
I think that the main way that they're able to do this, psychologically, is to recontextualize the (legitimate in their eyes) male power in their lives as somehow non-hierarchical and neutered of will. On their favorite gossip websites, they can pretend that the admin is just their buddy (whether they treat him this way behind closed doors is irrelevant; the narrative works equally well as a cope or just to save face) who doesn't have power over them that they submit to for privileges; he's just doing them a favor as a friend. It's something he's compelled to do by being a good person, so it's not power; the sun doesn't have power over us just because we depend on it—it just shines. That's just what it does automatically.
They certainly aren't only operating within the consciously pre-determined confines of a man's agency. They definitely don't buy their security at the price of subjection to a man's (perhaps open to feedback and non-tyrannical, but still final) will.
Applied to men they know, this is "he's compelled by his duty as a man to help me". Applied to the government, it can be "we live in a democracy and they have to follow the will of the people (us)". If they don't believe in democracy (or support the current regime), it can be "they (the aspect of the power structure that they support) are compelled by 'duty' or 'the rules' or 'decency' to govern us; it's not an expression of their will".
In other words, in the world that they posit (I'm not saying they actually want it or think it's real), is one where "good men" (strong, brave robots) protect and provide for women for the sole reason—excluding even authentic virtue, which is an act of will—that their social-moral-consensus-programming (enforced by women) binds them to do so. This is the only way to have a society where men protect women, but men don't have authority over women. You'd have to remove men's agency entirely.
But no woman wants a man with no will.
Their number one argument against needing men is that they aren't able to attract chivalrous gigachads to protect them (bit of a self-report IMO) and that men today are generally weak (a regime issue, which would require male action to fix). For one thing, that's totally irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which was about why men are needed. If I'm in a desert, I don't stop needing water just because there's none around. For another, in what world do chivalrous gigachads have no will of their own beyond social consensus?
Really bizarre line of argumentation from them. I'm forced to draw a few conclusions:
The system that they implicitly posit is only fully appealing to exclusive lesbians (whom, for the sake of argument, I'll assume exist).
Hetero women do not actually want this system, but will cope by telling themselves that they do. This allows them to pretend to have power (which is fun), and is also a useful narrative to feed the pet spiritually-neutered robot-men in their lives who can perform many useful functions.
Addendum to point 2: my point here isn't that protecting women needs to be transactional, but that it's not a virtue if it isn't an act of will. If a man saves a woman out of will rather than compulsion, then by virtue of his will being active the woman in "under subjection" when he defends her (the limits of her environment are defined by his will). For any women reading, this isn't about "getting sex from women". A man can have sex with a woman and still be "spiritually neutered" in the sense described. See the YouTuber "Idubbz" for an example.
As mentioned above, whether or not they maintain this position behind closed doors is another matter: I think that in many cases it's more about maintaining face as an "independent" woman, while knowing it's not true at all; for others, it may be a useful cope that helps them maintain their self-image, even if they're clearly operating under the will of a man (and enjoy doing so).
Due to this narrative, it is absolutely necessary that these women deny the active virtues of the men around them, especially in aggregate. The entire worldview depends on the denial of men's agency when doing good. For women to be totally "liberated", men—outside of isolated cases—must never be admitted to rise above the moral level of animals acting on instinct. This explains most of the bizarre claims in the Man-Hate thread. Feminism as an ideology dies if men are thought of as human—the only way for that to not be the case would be if they started talking about getting a woman-army together to violently overthrow the patriarchy.
The purpose of these three spoilered quotes is to try and explain some of the mechanism behind what women want out of men. Men are fire, and women are kindling. Women are attracted a man's potency (in whatever form that may take); confidence signals that potency. Think of the vampire fantasy; she wants not only a dangerous guy (who can protect her), but someone who can transform or initiate her in some respect. That's a big part of what's going on under the hood.
I've known women (mainly online, but they were live-video-confirmed women) who wanted me to get them into my weird autismo fetishes for this reason; some women will even want to become sexual retards as long as they're being altered. That might be kinda sick-headed, though, and I don't recommend advertising that.
Rene Girard talks a lot about these dynamics. If you don't develop your social skill to a level where you can read cues, though, you'll just come across as a creep half the time (being generous).
You'll also want to balance what your fellow autists say with things said by people who are actually married (or otherwise successful with women). I check my ideas against some of the guys here for that reason.
I just figured I'd ask my question in here since it seems to be a thread where men who are/have struggled in the past with friends, relationships whatever the fuck could provide input. I have literally nobody to talk to IRL.
Orthodox Church. You'd have to actually believe in it, though. If you're curious, my thoughts on that are elsewhere. Maybe other Churches would work too (from a purely social perspective), but I don't know about them or if they have a similar number of younger men.
That's the only IRL pre-made place that I can think of with a suitably high chud concentration; other than that, you'll have to develop passions and find people who share them. Friends are men who are engaged in a common pursuit. The purpose of conversation is generally to identify common pursuits; if what you're pursuing is truth of some kind, the conversation and the pursuit can be the same thing. Desire and satisfaction all in one: a "golden circle", to quote Mike from Twin Peaks. That's why I'm in this thread, incidentally.
If you have literally nobody to talk to, I unironically reccomend finding similarly minded people on places like Xitter and joining discord group chats. For me, it was skype groups and teamspeak VCs; these sustained me for several years before planting more stable roots in real-life communities (one of my autistic VC buddies got me into philosophy and religion, which is what got me into real physical locations; the one led to the other).
If your local community college (or university) has a video game club or something similar it could also be helpful, depending on your age.
Don't get too high-and-mighty; just find people who share your passions, work to develop better passions so that you can connect with more kinds of people, and avoid trannies wherever possible.
I don't interact with any women besides my mom and the only other women I've interacted with were teachers and my granny. Anyway, even though I love my mommy and my granny is dead, and I have never had any kind of negative experience with a woman bad enough for me to be able to recall it at this moment, but I still hate women because I have learned enough about them from the internet and my short largely inattentive observances of them IRL. Jaszczcomp was right.
I don't interact with any women besides my mom and the only other women I've interacted with were teachers and my granny. Anyway, even though I love my mommy and my granny is dead, and I have never had any kind of negative experience with a woman bad enough for me to be able to recall it at this moment, but I still hate women because I have learned enough about them from the internet and my short largely inattentive observances of them IRL. Jaszczcomp was right.
