- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
This is complete nonsense. You claim feminism gives women choices. It doesn't. Feminism, like any other system, works through social pressures. Today's women are pressured to be mindless sluts and think this is their choice. Well, guess what? Women 200 years ago also believed that patriarchy and being a housewife are their choice. You think a woman has the right to support patriarchy today? I follow several such women and I can tell you their life is what a life of a slut would have been 200 years ago- their employers get contacted, they get doxxed, threatened, harassed.It gives women a choice. Why should anyone be expected to depend on anything? What if a woman didn't want to be a housewife? Assumption 1: dependence on a provider is what's best for everyone. You can't know that, nor can I. Everyone has different aspirations. The opportunity to be dependent or independent or codependent are afforded to people through these choices.
It's not a woman's choice to be a retarded slut who slept with 40 guys before she was 18. Most women would be far happier and wives and mothers.
Also, why think women are financially independent now? Of course not. They're just dependent on a different provider, government. Women would never have the jobs they do and the earnings they have without artificial measures like government growth or AA.
I have no idea what does this pertain to. Of course women see value in being sluts now. But objectively this destroys civilizations.Value is subjective. people get a lot of intangible things from relationships. Assumption 2: everyone has the same concept of value as you do.
When did I ever said I am "quiet"? That's just another stereotype you have. Anyway, I said why women like trash - it's because trash is most successful in feminist societies.So much butthurt here. The big dumb jocks get the girls and no one likes me--the smart quiet guy!! And you say I am learning from cartoons?
I said that these seducer men aren't the only successful ones. Alpha men, who are strong leaders, are also successful to a point. But not as in prefeminist societies where alphas could hoard women. Somebody like Roosh can impregnate many women in one year but some big CEO will have 4 kids max with his wife. So alphas are less successful than those who are actual omegas - seducers.Now I'll agree with you that there is some serious trash at the top of the heap, but you can't possibly know this of everybody. That's a glaring assumption about both who people are and what people want. So Assumption 3: covers both your interpretation of the kinds of people who are successful (there are many different kinds) as well as the ramifications of said success (in this case, moral decline and "feral children", either real or figurative).
You worship policies that create this.I think telling me I "worship" anything, specifically rape and cutting women up (or whatever the fuck you baselessly accused me of wanting) is another massive assumption.
I don't know what you're even referring to. You claim nobody takes me seriously when even looking at this thread, let alone my blog, shows this isn't the case. It's a pure lie. Public record confirms the opposite of what you're saying.Now I admit, I'm bringing up personal shit about you that I probably shouldn't be, but it's essentially public record via your web presence. It's confirmable. And much of it undermines the notion that anyone should take your ideology seriously.
and this idea of you running around impregnating people just sounds dumb.
In fact, it is very serious people who take me seriously and very insane people who don't.
What would this accomplish? It would show you the consequences of the policies you support, which result in what I want to do - irresponsible men running around and impregnating skanks. It's breathtakingly stupid to say this is wrong when you created a world where this is a usual thing.and this idea of you running around impregnating people just sounds dumb. What does that accomplish for anyone? Who said anyone worships anybody anyway? How are you such an authority on this stuff when you've (by your own admission) only espoused it for a couple of years? (Source: you saying you were a "liberal until 2012")
Also, it doesn't matter how long I've been espousing something. What matters is how well I understood it. The books are all there. Unwin's book gives at least 80 examples of a society dying when they became slutdoms. He is no disagraced scholar like that moron Ramm claims and was extremely respected and published in academic journals of his time.