new

RE: Kiss Me Now, You Nazi! Refusing to Date Woke Women Makes You ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Far-Right’, Apparently

What about househusbands? That's a badge I happily wear.

What about them? They score between 0-1 on a 1-10 attractiveness scale .

It would drive me insane to have a househusband.

”Because that is what she WANTS to do. Feminists are not against women being housewives if they want.”
Yes they are. I cannot tell you how many nasty, hateful screeds I’ve read online about housewives. They say we’re lazy, stupid, worthless, slaves to men, etc. They only want women to do what they want, if it fits in with the liberal ideology.

Feminists resent domestic women despite lip-service to "women's choice."

Domestic women, unless rich-by-daddy, automatically depend on a man for their livelihood. This irks feminists to no end, but not because they think those women will be enslaved to a man, as folklore would have you believe; but because they know men willingly enslave themselves to those domestic wives by bringing them livelihood and protection on a platter - something an authentic Feminist could have never inspired in a man to begin with.

Because that is what she WANTS to do. Feminists are not against women being housewives if they want.

This is because:

1. Feminists are individualists, not holistic, civilization-oriented thinkers. Civilizations are not built strictly with what individuals WANT (their whims).

2. Feminists know their aggressive ideology and propaganda denigrates individual choices they personally despise anyway (Fems DO despise the housewife role and they resent women who can afford to choose this role).
Note how it is increasingly difficult for family with traditional values to choose to keep the wife in a strictly domestic role. They tell you you have a choice; but with enough women coaxed in the workplace, the provider/homemaker option becomes an unrealistic economic options for many. Only theoretical.

Generally speaking, when everyone is told that they can do whatever suits them, personally, and that their society should accommodate every individual with the widest possible array of choices - you end up with no civilization.

The bottom line is that, with very rare exceptions, most women contribute best to civilization by fulfilling reproductive and domestic roles, not "professional/technical."

Just like most men contribute best in the public sphere, not when they change diapies.

In fact, if you examine closer the so-called "workplace" (as if the domestic area is not a "workplace") most women mess around in frivolous, bureaucratic, paper-shuffling, make-work, resource-wasting, water-cooler gossiping jobs, not in value-adding jobs.

Women's value remains in the private sphere. It always has, it always will. The rare, highly competent female surgeon (or what not) can easily be replaced with an equivalent male. Keep the rare Anna Coulter in the public world - that one would probably explode if confined to domesticity.

Otherwise, it's not worth messing up your civilization for very rare individual exceptions to the rule.

Bring women back home. Make the Private Sphere Great Again!

Unfortunately, guys do not have a choice in what we want to do; same goes I suppose for most women. The 'elites' who have destroyed this once great country have made sure of that by importing tens of millions of illiterate turd worlders, ordering LE to let them run wild as they destroy the civilization that white people built over the last 500 years, and then their corporate world refuses to employ white people as anything other than fry cooks, toilet cleaners and floor sweepers. Jeff Sessions observed that 60% of all white STEM graduates never work in their field 5 years after graduation, or effectively, NEVER. This is because the corp world like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, et al employ h2b types, illegals and worse. But of course the MSM blames YT for anything that is wrong in this country. That record is getting very old and after 3 or 4 generations we have gotten wise to who is that bunch of clowns behind the curtin in the OZ throne room.

Yes. And what feminists do not want the public to understand is that when you hurt most men, you automatically hurt most women too.

Women are not attracted to weak, vulnerable, dispossessed men - whether they have enough money/power of their own or not. Just like men are not attracted to ugly, fat, fighter-type, non-feminine women.

It's nobody's fault. It's not that the sexes are mean to each other. It's what we have evolve to look for. A better world is a world where both sexes are encouraged and helped along to become the most of what the opposite sex looks for in a partner. That's kind, humane and beautiful.

It is why every young woman secretly dreams of being an inspirational princess who leaves glitter behind as she walks. It's why every guy dreams of being James Bond - who leaves bodies behind (as needed) as he walks.

Most leftist women are feminine conforming.

Originally, maybe. Increasingly less so, as feminism continues to weave its works. Most people with minimal observational acumen, who have had the chance to compare and contrast female populations in various feminist and non-feminist cultures (aka "perspective"), can recognize the subtly masculine traits of most contemporary western women when compared to women elsewhere.

Outspoken (translate loud), assertive (translate aggressive), confident (translate full-of-themselves or just nonchalant), trying hard to be funny (translate 'not funny'), cool (translate cold), comfortable and buddy-like around men (translate slutty), etc. They may wear lipstick and sport mermaid hair but their subtly masculine traits are less subtle with every decade. Western men and women are now pushed to converge in a gray area of androgyny.

Though the pretty feminine women see nothing wrong with what their non-feminie conforming sisters are doing.

Ever heard of virtue signaling? They don't want to act "judgy" because the culture says it' not cool; but I can promise you they they DO recognize plenty wrong with what their overtly non-feminine "sisters" are doing (non-feminine as in more or less butchy). On this point, this only means less sexual competition for them. Btw, there's no "sisterhood."

You appear to have little understanding of the depths of female hypocrisy and manipulation abilities.

Really? I’ve never met a feminist that didn’t double down on the lunacy and tried to emotionally castrate their sons and turn them into “feminist men”.

It can be confusing to distinguish all the conscious and subconscious motivations behind a woman's feminist identity. Not all declared feminists are created equal. There are authentic feminists (true genetic failures as women); there are popularity-driven feminists (women as herd creatures opt for what seems most popular); there are vanity-driven feminists (attention whores/ celebrities of the Me Too persuasion); there are defensive feminists (afraid of the rigors and upward pressures patriarchal societies often impose on women), etc. I'd say most female feminists fall in the latter two categories.

The popularity-driven ones usually don't know their left from right and just parrot back whatever sounds "cool" and "with it."

Sexual selection makes no damn evolutionary sense.

image
Intro

This post will focus specifically on the human race while using animal studies as a base reference. Anthropologists, social scientists, normies and PUAs can justify describing human behavior in terms of their 'primitive animal brain' then it is only fair that this thread be allowed to do the same.
Sexual selection is the selection of mates (overwhelmingly done by females), to select the 'best' male to propagate with. This selection process is entirely based on the whims and wants of the female species. As a contrast, this is entirely different from natural selection where the best candidates for survival/propagation are determined by the environment.

With this being said, it should be noted that the argument of women selecting the best genes because of natural selection is a wholly incorrect statement. Women select purely on sexual selection and this selection process likely does not benefit to the human race as a whole, and may even impede the human race to survive.

[…]

The human species
image Anthropological studies have indicated that modern humans have significantly smaller brains compared to our ancient counterparts, which included the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. What made the human race unique in the animal kingdom was our disproportionately large brains to our body mass. While it may seem that we are still more intelligent than our predecessors, it's mainly due to readily available information being provided to us by technology that offsets this. Ancient humans however had to rely heavily on creativity, tool making, navigation and determination which necessitate increased brain mass.
People may argue that "if our ancient cousins were so intelligent, then why did they go extinct?", and the answer is simple; it's evident that females did not value intelligence or cranial size. They simply selected on qualities that were completely irrelevant to their survival (likely because they never were involved in hunting parties and never could appreciate the importance of intelligence over something comparatively less important like height or muscle mass). Eventually the Neanderthals and other hominids went extinct, leaving the smaller, weaker (and arguably dumber) Homo Sapien male counterparts to inherit what's left. The loss had been so severe that we still have people in Africa who can't figure out how to farm.

Why human sexual selection makes no sense
imageHuman females seem to value completely irrelevant and senseless traits in males (such as ability to dance, or having symmetrical faces) which have negligible effects/relevance on the survival of the human species. In the current year women seem to be driven by societal pressure to select men whom are over 6'0 tall. This is in spite of the fact that for the large majority of human history, the average human height was less than 5'4. Up to as recently as the 1800's the average human height barely broke 5'10.

For the vast majority of human existence height was the least important determining factor of survival. Being tall, meant you had a larger body frame, lost more heat, required more consumption of the already scarce resources, moved more slowly, and had more difficulty stealthily hunting. Being someone 6'0 tall over someone who was 5'2 (being that tall was pretty much nonexistent back then) was a completely pointless trait when facing off a mammoth for food. What mattered the most was whomever made the better spears and whomever had the better hunting technique to track and kill animals that were 4x their size. i.e. bigger brains.
Being 6'0 tall is meaningless in terms of survival, but however is only selected today because of artificial societal norms and women's illogical need to feel safe in an age where devices like guns exist.imageThere will be a time where human females will keep demanding taller and taller mating partners with smaller and smaller brains, resulting in misshapen and maladapted human beings. They will very likely call for 6'2 males and progress to call for 6'4 and so on.
We do in fact have people who are monstrously tall today and they suffer from a myriad of problems, because like the Irish Elk, the human body simply isn't equipped to handle the immense physical stress from the unrealistic proportions demanded by the female species. People who are 7'0 tall already suffer from serious ailments such as joint erosion, heart failure, osteoporosis and an overall higher mortality rate. All the product of relentless sexual selection pressure for no other reason than women like it that way.
imageIt's also no surprise that the vast majority of the prison population are made of hyper masculine and aggressive males, because these are traits that were ultimately selected for by females. But why this makes no sense in terms of natural selection is that very high testosterone levels predisposes these types of males to be too aggressive; they become uncooperative and exhibit maladaptive behaviors that threaten tribal cohesion. They are less likely to care for and look after their offspring and may even kill them. They have higher drives to only procreate and spend little or not time being creative, or learning skills (if their intelligence allows them for it). They are less likely to share food and resources. They are in prison for this reason because they cannot fit into civilized society.

Yet, more than half of prison misconduct occurs between male inmates, and female prison guards.

Is there hope left?
image About 80% of human males are the unattractive 'betas' because of our evolutionary heritage, and also because a few clever ancestors devised a societal system where the provisioning of partners were evenly distributed based on merit. Unfortunately that societal system has eroded over the last few hundred years and part of the reason why women are disgusted by 80% of these men were because those men 'prevented them having their fun'. So despite having maladaptive hyper masculine animals in prison, women wil still seek them out (and unaccounted drug dealers/gangsters/crime lords, etc.) for producing offspring. Worst case scenario is that they may even engage in degenerate behavior such fornicating with animals to satisfy their sexual needs.
image
Unfortunately I don't have the answers and its my personal opinion that the human race is doomed by the way of the Irish Elk, Pandas and many other species where the females prefer extinction and/or genetic regression as opposed to mating with what they deem as a 'not good enough male'.

Yes	23 votes	88.5%
No	3 votes	11.5 %