All do respect why are atheist people in this forum God please place me next to them at judgment day lol so many perverted versions of christianity only one acceptable version you either believe in Jesus and live for him or perish in hell
Re: twoxroasties wants you to be a compassionate cuck when your wife cucks you, births some chad's spawn, bails on you, and then leaves you to raise chad's spawn. women are a meme.
(C0nserve)
I had my suicide planned in case the day he would realize I wasn't worthy of his love because of my genetics would come
Roastie on leddit experiences 1% of the hardships of incel lifestyle and wants to rope already
(Brainlaid)
If you ever ascend, DNA test your kids.
Anyway, women don't have consciousness or empathy, she just isn't fucking capable of putting herself in someone else's shoes. It's all about how SHE FEELS and what happens to her.
(Administrative_Worth)
In their minds, them tricking yiu into rasing offspring is actually moral. You see that kid needs resources, it's a kid, it's pure, it's innocent, it deserves fulfillment. Plus she knows it's hers. Therefore she has even more bond to see it succeed and receive resources. Always get your kids tested. Honestly even chad should. Believe me, women cheat, a lot. If they think they can get away with it, and the guys worth it, they cheat. Fact of life.
(Deoxysxx)
I cant even call that man a cuck, he is more of a man than the real father
I'm happy to read this comment in this sub. I also wouldn't leave a little child behind if I have taken care of it for so many years. Cuck or not, if people can show mercy to random people through charity, then you can take care of one more kid. It's not the kid's fault.
Random charity does not mean being legally financially tied against your will to a person you were deceived into believing was your biological offspring. Don't even compare the two. They are nothing alike.
(grilledcheesaroo)
I can. He is a fucking cuck that willingly took unnecessary stress & partially ruined his own life over a whore's bastard daughter.
And you're no better, you fucking cuck. If you don't kick both the whore & her cheat trophy out; you are a fucking cuck. I have no respect for either.
His older parents tried speaking sense into this father but they raised a soft little feminized wimp.
(41PercentIsNotEnough)
Lmao all the comments defending him, this sub is infested by normies, fakecels, and cucks
To each their own
[A peace sign in rainbow colors]
Every color has its place. An ethnic home for every race.
Chicago Tribune Article Today: "'Prison is not where women need to be': All-female task force wants to cut Illinois’ female prison population in half"
(JStheHammer)
“Prisons were made for men, and they are made to traumatize,” said Celia Colon"
(lostapwbm)
“Prisons were made for men, and they are made to traumatize,” said Celia Colon, who teared up after sharing with the group her history of abuse. “They were not made for healing.”
Traumatizing men is perfectly acceptable. Traumatizing women (who got to prison by traumatizing others) is not acceptable because...women are equal to men?
“Prison is not where women need to be,” said Benedict, a partner on the National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. “Even if prisons were highly functional places, they don’t belong there. It’s a train wreck, to be honest, a train wreck.”
If women commit felonies, then prison is exactly where they need to be. As a matter of fact, women commit felonies and gynocentric judges and prosecutors often REFUSE to send them to prison.
Margaret Byrne, an attorney who for 35 years has represented countless women who fought back against abusers, agreed. Many women call 911 to report the violent crime they’ve just committed on a partner, Byrne said, but they fail at proving the difficult self-defense theory in court.
Probably because you can't 'self-defense' a man while he's sleeping, or when his back is turned, or when he's not presenting an immediate and credible threat.
By the time she was 16 and living in South Chicago, Colon had drifted into gang life, drawn by its offer of support — and guns for protection.
“I saw a lot of hurt and bloodshed,” Colon, 42, told the other women gathered at the first meeting. “Things that are never gonna be erased. It does irreversible damage.”
You mean you validated cholos and gangbangers by giving them pussy.
Those who insist that they cannot be held responsible for their own actions, that they are merely leaves floating along the winds of economic circumstances, ore are victims of societal programming, should not enjoy the right to affect or influence public policy or the use of public money.
(HeForeverBleeds)
I've got a long list of articles where people try to argue for female criminals getting lenient sentences or no jail on the basis of being female. A long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long list. I guess this one can be added
I think part of why it's such a popular idea is because gynocentrism is prevalent in both of the main ideologies. Feminism says females are always the oppressed victim to the point where even female criminals are truly the victims and therefore prison is "victimizing" them again. Traditionalism stereotypes women as helpless, innocent, childlike, and basically too weak to be a threat; therefore she's not really responsible for any crime she commits
Both tend to perceive women as morally superior. Both tend to perceive the well-being of the female in any given situation (whether she's the victim or the perpetrator) as more important and more worthy or in need of being protected
(fractureegg)
Yep. And proof of your argument can be found from a statement made a hundred years ago by Chicago attorney Agnes McHugh. In 1906 she said, “A man-jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man.”
Turns out that having a female prosecutor or judge or females on the jury doesn't make any difference.
I don't have any stats handy but it's possible that female accountability vis a vis the justice system has actually grown over the past few decades. In patriarchies the main female "sin" is adultery, which is often severely punished; but they get away with pretty much everything else. (In some primitive fundamentalist religious societies, "witchcraft" is also severely punished).
But I guess it was inevitable that after a brief flirtation with the idea of treating women as semi-adults, feminists wouldn't be able to resist exploiting gynocentrism to increase their privileges even more. But women are still supposed to be treated like equals somehow. Zero logic or sense of justice, as usual.
(VantagePoint2018)
Generally, people look at the motives and background of female criminals whereas they just assume male criminals are uniquely evil.
(Razorbladekandyfan)
This is why we need a mens movement.
I'm not entirely sure it's fair to make the judgement that 'we' are treating them a certain way when reservations were set up with the goal of Indian tribes acting as 'independent sovereigns'. The best thing that could happen for these tribes is complete integration into the US and a redaction of tribal sovereignty. I suppose that wouldn't sit well with some people however.
As a parent I think statutory rape as a crime should be abolished. It's been used as a sledgehammer against too many teens it was never intended to be used against, much the same way we're seeing child porn laws being wielded against the kids they were intended to protect. And if parents don't want their child having sex with someone, regardless of the other party's age (young or old, it doesn't matter), then they should have the right to nix the relationship. If that other person doesn't stop then we have tools in place today that didn't exist when statutory rape laws were invented, namely restraining orders that keep people away. If, and only if, someone violates the restaring order should they be arrested.
Having seen the world and lived overseas for many years, it's clear that people can consent much younger than we currently allow in the US. Plus girls tend to mature faster than boys. And then there's the fact that some people even in their 20s probably aren't mature enough to be having sex--it goes both ways. We as society need to accept this reality, not hide from it by criminalizing healthy natural sexuality because some people happen to fall below a certain age.
If someone's parents think they're ready for sexual activity, or not, then let them be the arbiters of what's appropriate for their own child. Parents can determine if their child can have tattoos, piercings, medical procedures, but for some reason when it comes to sex and/or reproduction they have no say in the matter. It's legally and IMO morally inconsistent.
It seems to me that Asian men and black women are the most loyal to their tribe. That’s probably because Asian men lack desirable testosterone, and yes, dick size to be appealing. And black women typically aren’t the most feminine types. They stick to their own with more loyalty because they have less to offer. It’s actually quite respectable.
Alright, so I made a Mandela Effect post yesterday as a celebration for Mandela's would-be birthday. I included two "bonus" events that are actually personal to my life and one memory got some decent attention and someone said I should get some input here. So here we go...
I grew up with a dog, Casey. She was a very dark chocolate lab, almost black just not quite. About 80 pounds-ish, good size. Healthy. Extremely playful. She was the family dog for myself, my two older brothers and older sister, mother, and father. We lived in a two story house - extremely vivid memories include myself sitting in my father's green lazy-boy chair, spinning around with Casey running circles around the chair "chasing me" as I was spinning in it. Wrestling with the dog back and forth between my siblings in the living between the couch and TV. Running up and dog the stairs chasing one another and playing tug of war with her toys. That fuckin' dog was a huge part of my childhood, pre-divorce.
My parents divorced just before I turned 7. For an unexplained reason [or perhaps I just don't remember the reason because I was upset], we had to get rid of Casey. I guess maybe they didn't want to fight over the dog in the divorce and took the dog out of the picture. I remember loading her up in my father's green Chevrolet Tahoe, and riding with her in the back to her new family who adopted her from us. My father had to literally force me to let her go when we arrive because I was so upset and loved that dog so fucking much.
And now, as an adult at 28 years old, I am still the only person on the planet who even remembers the dog's existence. I guess for the rest of my childhood I pushed her out of mind until I was around 15 years old, and then I asked my father about Casey. I never got an answer as a child so I thought I'd ask why we had to get rid of her just because of a divorce. My father told me we never had a dog. My brothers, sister, and mother have all confirmed that the dog never existed. To this very fucking day, I am the ONLY person who remember the dog's existence. And I am pissed off about it because Casey was a huge part of my early childhood...
Anyone else got something like this?
Toronto, False Flag, MK Ultra, Free Mason nearby?
As we know with False Flags there is a Free Mason nearby. Has anyone seen or heard about a Free Mason nearby?
I ask this because another person with mental health issues. Looks like a pattern.
Toronto shooting suspect identified as Faisal Hussain, family says he had 'severe mental health challenges'
We need to go back and investigate Comet Ping Pong shooter, Edgar Welch, and his parents. The MSM use this incident to make us look nuts. He was a plant. His father was in a very interesting position as head of a child protection bureau in none other than.... HAITI
Edgar Welch was his name. His father was the head of a council in Haiti that protected victimized children..... Hmmm very interesting given what we now know.
Please dig on this.
Every time they try to discredit the Qanon movement they bring up the fact that 'one of us' traveled to DC to shoot up Comet Ping Pong.
Edgar Welch was also an actor. We need to understand his connections so we can throw it back at them 10 fold.
If so many TIMs weren’t obsessed with fucking real women this wouldn’t be a problem. If you’re a TIM who genuinely believes other TIMs are real women then you wouldn’t care so much about having sex with real women and would content yourself with fucking other TIMs. But the truth is no one actually believes TIMs are women which is why TIMs are so hellbent on convincing real women to have sex with them.
(u/[deleted])
Does anyone else here think that Beards are some sort in-your-face reclamation of white masculinity? It's all the rage these days...
Sure, beards come and go. It's the law of fashion. But how much of it do you think is influenced by the current climate? The current climate is that China is rising in power. Yellow Peril has always been a thing, but it sure has been given a lot more attention this year.
So is the recent trend of white men donning beards a racial thing? Is it to mock Asian men while at the same time, show dominance over Brown men who get called "Terrists" if they grow one?
What do you guys think?
([deleted])
Beards are becoming more popular because white people want to go back to a "better" time. More rustic styles are becoming the norm for the same reason. And movies like "The Revenant" are extremely popular. It is a fantasy they sell to white america. They cant build a fire and wouldnt know the difference between a 12 gauge and 30-06 but they can look rustic and pretend they are frontiersmen or something.
(racismisformorons)
Yes, absolutely.
I noticed this as well and posted about it a year ago under a throwaway:
https://np.reddit.com/r/AsianMasculinity/comments/3erm34/has_anyone_noticed_how_even_hipalternative_images/
To save a click, here it is:
Inspired by that terrible Buzzfeed page 'proving' that Asians (all 4.427 billion of them) can too meet white standards of masculinity, I wanted to point out how even images of cool or hip masculinity are exclusively filled by white men.
This is interesting to me, because it shows that the Other (i.e., non-white men), are not even portrayed in culturally alternative images of masculinity. That is, these alternative fashions constitute an Other that is not an Other, to put it philosophically. While these fashions are posed as being outside the mainstream to give them part of their allure and edge (to an extent - my guess is that they are becoming more popular), they are not associated with any persons outside the white mainstream (East Asians, Indians, etc.).
This could be understood as another instance of how whiteness dominates all discourses, but these cases are pernicious because of the presence and history of these fashions in places outside the West such as Japan.
Consider 'manbuns' (a word I'm embarrassed to use). The manbun is just the contemporary American vocabulary for "chonmage", the topknot hairstyle worn by Samurai. This hairstyle dates back several centuries in Japan, and yet, its history and popularity among a class of Japanese warriors is a historical irrelevance. White men wear manbuns, period. Have you seen an Asian man as the image of masculinity in any discussion about manbuns?
Consider beards. The bearded man, as adored among audiences, is a white man. Despite the fact one can literally search for images on Google using queries such as "Japanese beard", "Korean beard", "Chinese beard", "Indian beard", non white men do not feature in any of the media of the beard frenzy in America. It is not uncommon for me to read someone writing online that "Asians can't grow beards" or "I've never seen an Asian with a beard". This, despite the fact that a 5 second search on the Internet will prove otherwise. However, this is irrelevant. In this discourse of masculinity and beards, Asians CAN'T have beards, which is the more interesting observation, no matter how many terrible Buzzfeed articles are created. Take a look at the images of the beards on display on the Bristlr Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Bristlr All white men. Are there any brown men with beards on display in these media? Of course not. Persons of color literally do not exist as desirable images of masculinity in the cultural imagination of those who curate these media. To them, it would be like bringing up random animals such as giraffes or baboons as worthy of inclusion - a prima facie nonsensical and unthinkable suggestion.
Tattoos are pretty universal. Yet, the images of tattooed, sexy masculine men are always white. Again, despite the fact that groups in different cultures (the Yakuza in Japan: http://blog-cdn.tattoodo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/yakuza_2.jpg?09b2aa , the Maori in New Zealand: http://zealandtattoo.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/maori-tribe-face-tattoo-300x199.jpg ) feature men (who are probably much more dangerous than a hipster fashion model) bearing tattoos of intricate design and symbolic significance.
Is this really surprising? Sadly, no. But I believe it's important to see what is really being said when certain features/fashions are said to be desirable. It's not the features/fashions in themselves, but the boundary of whiteness they reaffirm and exclude non-white persons from.
(the0clean0slate)
Definitely. When I see a beard fanatic, who is really forcing the creation of beauty standard where more beard is better and they try to shame the one with less, I just see a clever white supremacist.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQ4A60Yl7Pi/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BP8_ywRB0kW/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BNDj5CJBdkh/
Cringe. It is a bunch of grown men trying to feel superior because they grow more hair on their chin, with no purpose at all.
We should create a tan club and do the same thing. Talk about how unmanly it is to not have tanned skin. Brag about how my skin is tanner than yours. Darker the better. Paler skin on a man is inferior. But we aren't racist, you know.
Whiteys figured out another way to create an exclusionary masculinity value spectrum. Be vigilant.
Also, the reason why they have more beard is just because they convert more of their testosterone to DHT, which has no use at all, other than getting prostate cancer, getting bald, growing hair on the chin. It is useless. It is literally just a genetic evolutionary way of faking a higher testosterone signal than you actually have. You know Asians are the actual ones with highest T. Whites actually have the lowest.
(blublas)
So is the recent trend of white men donning beards a racial thing? Is it to mock Asian men while at the same time, show dominance over Brown men who get called "Terrists" if they grow one? What do you guys think?
I would say your interpretation is in accord with other analysis we can make on the facial features that are seen as positive.
Sorry if I can't provide further reflexions, in my defence I do lack data to make a point here.
(cookiehead333)
White boys grow beards to look more masculine, to compensate for the emasculation by feminism and Blacks. Same thing for the prevalence of tattoos last 10 years or so.
(KhanHohii)
I noticed it started after September 11th when many Marines and U.S. soldiers entered Iraq and Afghanistan. They had news reports where these Marines and Special Force started growing beard to try to fit in with the locals. From then on the rage of growing full beard became popular.
I guess a majority of the American youths started to copy soldiers came back from these wars with that style and every hipsters want to copy that. Trying to show their toughness and masculinity.
Also the 300 movie was also the catalyst. The movie was about the masculinity of the West conquered the feminine Persia.
http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/163191/p163191_p_v8_aa.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/db/f9/3e/dbf93e6b82b86c16e2d860ce10daebfb.jpg
a cum dumpster talks about what its like being an instagram model
women like this are the scum of society they think they have it hard and are part of the meetoo movement like how can you respect yourself when all you do is suck cock n spread your legs, but "muh empowerment"
(On an "Aborted GF" meme)
This will be good for attracting "incels" into the pro-life movement. They already lean sympathetic too, so it's very fertile ground.
Re: A feminist decides to become a man. Now feminists accuse her of 'mansplaining,' 'taking up too much space,' and 'asserting white male heterosexual privilege'
(rainman206)
This article should be required reading for feminists.
I always hear, "You don't what it's like to be a woman." Indeed, I don't. And you don't know what it's like to be a man.
(Negative1)
My ability to empathize has grown exponentially, because I now factor men into my thinking and feeling about situations. Prior to my transition, I rarely considered how men experienced life or what they thought, wanted or liked about their lives.
Imagine fucking that. Can we set up a GoFundMe to make all the other feminists undergo gender transformations?
(NibblyPig)
Damn, one of the things I took away from that is how many of these transgender people are trying to be like someone they're not in order to fit in.
Like, they didn't feel themselves before so they've transitioned but now they try to "work on their behaviour" to be different to how they 'naturally' are now. Perhaps even try to be like how they used to be even though their hormones are completely different.
(TheMythof_Feminism)
Well, men can't be "feminists" they can only be allies, according to the feminists themselves.
And women cannot become men because sex cannot be changed.
So this title is poorly worded.
(puppehplicity)
Link doesn't work for me.
I will say that as a transgender guy, you would not believe the vitriol from certain aspects of the feminist movement. (Or maybe you would.)
Assertions that all men are rapists and batterers, assertions that choosing to be a man is choosing to side with rapists and batterers, assertions that I am a gender traitor, assertions that the transgender cult is stealing butch lesbians and we are all mentally ill lesbophobes, assertions that transgender guys are misogynists who have such a narrow view of what it means to be a woman that we assume any butchness is manliness, assertions that we are too weak to deal with the expectations forced on us by the patriarchy so we decide to become part of the patriarchy instead... it goes on and on.
They will eat you alive given the opportunity. And then they wonder why you don't call yourself a feminist. It's disgusting and exhausting. They don't see you as a person. They see you as a rhetorical pawn... either an oppressed sister they need to free or an oppressive man they need to fight or isolate from.
For what it's worth, I never claimed to be a woman, and I am not really a man. Most people think I am a man in daily life, so it's good enough shorthand. But I know my body and experiences are not the same as a non-transgender man, so it feels disingenuous to say that I am the same. I'm just... me. For better or for worse, I do what comes naturally to me and don't give it much thought at all. I have much more important shit to do.
Re: Karen Straughan on why Mens Rights is so difficult.
(DavidByron2)
You need to have a minimal amount of sympathy for a protest to work and men don't have it. It's the same as you wouldn't try to hold a rally for the rights of rapists or pedophiles and expect much good from it. Well feminism has made men about as sympathetic as rapists and pedophiles and often identified all men as rapists and pedophiles.
Another analogy would be like getting Jews to hold a big rally in Nazi Germany. It would be seen as disgusting and it would be attacked as dangerous.
(biscuitgravy)
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that men don't even have sympathy for themselves. Men are the most effective and motivated haters and killers of men. That subverts all of the traditional self-interest routes to popular organization.
The only thing that makes a regular guy organize with MRAs is total alienation by a gynocentric society. Not even facing death will make him leave gynocentrism in some cases. Guys volunteer to die all the time to protect a woman's honor. They have to meet with something totally intolerable. Something much greater than themselves, to even think of addressing their own problems. Usually, it's their children. But Feminists have secured the right to those as well.
(tenchineuro)
It's why when we approach the mainstream, we have to frame a LOT of men's rights issues in terms of how helping men helps women and children, or society, rather than how we should be helping men for their own sake. Convince people that men are utilities who should be cared for and maintained so they can and are willing continue to be of use
This is how we got where we are now, by being of use and not people in our own right. Men are tools, not human beings, I won't agree with that and that approach won't get men treated as anything but tools.
I have a great deal of respect for Karen, but I think she's off the beam with this.
(0x123d)
why no disobedience
Because we have jobs.
why is MRA so unpalatable
Because of how our species evolved. Girls > women > boys > pets > inanimate objects > men.Because of how our species evolved. Girls > women > boys > pets > inanimate objects > men.
(Elvick)
Think it's more women > girls > pets > boys > objects > men
With an argument that objects could come before boys even. And depending on the age range we're talking for "boy" it's as easy as domestic violence shelters turning away boys of a certain age because they could be "dangerous".
Women can make more children. Nature didn't guarantee girls would make it to child bearing years. So women were more valuable than girls. Women having more children was a more reasonable assumption than girls not dying from disease. It made sense.
Hell, vagina monologues has the rape of a 13 year old girl by a 20-something year old woman who plies the barely teenager with alcohol. And it's lauded as some great feminist text. A certain vile celebrity whose name I won't utter, molested her sister for years and she still has a career in Hollywood. The internet hates her, and rightfully spreads the information every time she's given a platform somewhere. But it hardly undoes anything.
Probably more examples. But women are definitely placed above even girls.
(mwobuddy)
There's actually a few reasons why its so difficult and its easy to sum up.
Conflation. "oh, so you're against women"? A typical argument.
Denial. "you think men don't have equal rights or protection in law, that's cute".
imprecise language. "you think there is no rape culture but I know plenty of women who've been raped". Both can be true, but rape culture is proven by "rape victims" while your definition of rape culture is "a culture that tells people explicitly to go out and rape women". Imprecise language is a problem for all sides in any argument, and is perhaps the most important issue. Its why you absolutely need to ask someone to declare specifically what they mean when they use a term or a phrase. You may be accused of pedantry, but this is often a tactic of obfuscation to say your side is inherently illegitimate.
These three are used in a motte and bailey tactic of every single men's rights debate.
(Wisemanner)
I think carefully thought out resistance to the system will have an effect, and there is some evidence that this is increasing; examples being men refusing to go to the aid of women; MGTOW; and men refusing to marry.
I would suggest at least the following be practised.
Pay as little tax as possible. Most tax is spent on women, with, in the UK, about twice as much spent on women's healthcare, and three times as much spend on research into their cancers. (Even though women live longer.)
Do not go to the aid of women, The police will arrest you in an instant if there is any mistake or confusion.
Do not help the police except where you are actually helping another male or yourself. These are, after all, the enablers and helpers of feminism, and the thugs who hammer a man's door at six am simply on the word of a woman.
Do not marry. The whole system is rigged to get the husband to pay the living expenses of the wife even when she no longer wants to have anything to do with him.
5.Do not vote Socialist in the UK. The other parties are not much better, but the Labour Party is feminist-infested.
There is almost certainly much more.
(lacandib)
The civil disobedience/protest route could work but it would have to led by women.
(The_Best_01)
Why?
Because evidently, society listens more to women. In the best-case scenario, it would be led by men and women.
(Elvick)
Because men are viewed as dangerous in those circumstances... look at the arguments against men's spaces and clubs. It's always about how it's dangerous. And that's just a private space or a club on campus.
An entire protest filled of men wouldn't go over any differently. Did you even read Karen's comment? She talks about how society views men as dangerous in there.
Black women are the lowest sexual status group in all of society. A black woman who somehow scores a white man knows she's won the lottery, and won't rock the boat for the most part. Relationships work best with a submissive woman.
In response to a man whose girlfriend got an abortion
Those fire-and-brimstone protesters outside the infanticide center already did my job for me, but I thought I would just offer a casual reminder.
Enjoy your unending nightmares where you imagine the baby smoothie scrape. and/or sucked out by the doctor and tossed into the trash bin.
I bet your son/daughter must have felt a sudden surge of shock in its neurons as it was destroyed into a paste. It never would get to say, "I love you Daddy" even once.
Maybe next time you can actually be a man with your wife instead of an accomplice.
"I love you Daddy"
Re: Asian customer assaulted at TopShop while store manager sides with the assailants
(kazshin23)
She only dates white men. https://v.qq.com/x/page/7in23Z2AAtG.html
I mean It's certainly horrible and I support her as an individual under attack. But if she or someone wants to involve racism so to get support I disagree.
Edit: the video starts with her saying "you are the first foreign man I see in this show". Hosts asked "Didn't you see the last one from Russia?". She answered "I forget that one the moment I see him". In the show, female host said she'd 'bursted' tonight and became different. She replied this was a hard-to-find opportunity(but the man is based in Hong Kong). Near the end, male host said she came all the way back to China from NY for the show, but ended up with an American. Show was in 2011. She was born in 1983. Man was 43, had 4 Chinese gfs.
Someone specifically talked about this episode on forum, although her name was confused with a homophone in the thread. http://bbs.tianya.cn/m/post-free-2128482-1.shtml He mentioned that in previous episodes she was always nitpicking and not polite to Chinese guys, but suddenly she put on a blush this time. Many girls in this dating show have white fever, too.
(legunner94)
Not our fight then
(cheyenneproverb)
And also majority of asian feminists will stay quiet about disproportionate black on asian female violence bc they place black ppl higher up on the leftist oppression olympics totem pole above themselves.
And ironic how the black store manager was allowed to kick out this (prob leftist) asian female while Starbucks got in big legal trouble for trying to kick out 2 black males for loitering.
Black people are so high up on the leftist oppression olympics totem pole that they can be openly tribalistic and racist and people will be too afraid to call them out for it.
African American women act like this all the time. That's why they have the highest out of wedlock rates. Just a bunch of pumps and dumps
.
This comment is racist and wrong and I don’t agree with you. You need to re educate yourself. I’m not saying the situation is okay but what does race have to do with it? The attacker could just as easily been someone not black. This is ignorant. Manage
.
Blah, blah, blah. Typical meek Asian response. Can tell Asians to shut up but can't tell the Afro Americans who assaulted her, "You're racist and wrong. I don't agree with you. You need to reeducate yourself." BYE!
.
Considering over 90% of NYCs violent crime is non-white, primarily black and Hispanic, it’s not entirely inaccurate to say “they act like this all the time” ... especially in NYC
(chilibun)
Well I'm not going to tell anybody not to support somebody who is a victim of a crime, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care about anybody who wouldn't care about me. I (and the Asian community) shouldn't be a crutch for these Lus and Chans. People who you fall back on when you need support and then be treated as lesser people when you don't.
Also, just because I don't support racism especially against Asians doesn't mean I will have sympathy for these racists, when they get the short end of the stick. So yes, I hope those racist attackers get caught and charged to the full extent of the law, but no, I don't have sympathy for this woman at all. Two separate issues.
(cheyenneproverb)
you're getting the downvotes bc the majority of asian females in the US like her and also this one
"First ever Broadway play written by an Asian-American woman is about the identity of Straight White Men"https://old.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/906sr6/first_ever_broadway_play_written_by_an/
have BLATENTLY walked away from asian men and openly play for team white guy. Let her old white guy boyfriends advocate for her
(linsanitytothemax)
wow just a random unprovoked attack? wtf? i mean how many times does that actually happen? that shit is fucked up.reading some of the comments..i love how black people are saying "stop generalizing us" well guess what? stop doing the same to us then.the sad thing is the attacker targeted her because she is Asian. we are powerless and they know it. they think they can get away with this more so than if this was done to a white person.zero respect for Asians period.who she dates doesn't really have nothing to do with this. she was targeted because she was Asian. think about how bold this shit is. out of nowhere she gets punched in a public space without any reason. that shit is frightening.think about it...it could have been your gf or wife that this happened to. if any Asian speaks about this they will be called "anti-black" racists. i swear man black people think they can get away with this kind of shit because they are on the top of the oppression totem pole while Asians are on the bottom.
(michael5029)
Black people have a thing for hitting pretty AF for no reason. Probably because they keep getting away with it, I remember seeing a video of a Twitch streamer who was walking down the street recording herself when she got punched in the chest by a black lady. There were a bunch of people walking around too, but no one noticed or cared, probably because it was kind of crowded and it wasn't their business.
Anyways, someone said she was white worshipping, so I kind of lost a little bit of respect for her, but at least she is standing up for herself, even if it is online. Black on Asian racism is way too common form what I see.
(archelogy)
Put me in the undecided column.
First, it's rare someone gets attacked for no reason. I'm not getting what I think is a full account. Second, I've learned that women, regardless of race, can often cry foul and people listen unquestioningly- some not all women abuse that. Third, from her FB photos she looks like she glorifies light skin and whiteness. Fourth, as Kazshin pointed out below- she only dates white men. Now, before people react to this and say "that's not reason to not support her", I'm not deciding on that basis; but I DO think it "fits" as far as accounting for what might have led up to this encounter. That is to say, a disturbing number of AF act with disgust towards Asians and non-whites; even more so when they exclusively date white (pig-chasing). Sometimes that behavior has consequences even if they get away with it 99% of the time. Whether that happened here or not, I'd need to see the full video or hear from some Asian or non-white observers to corroborate. White observers don't count.
So I'm sure this woman will get thousands of FB likes. Besides Asians, really the only other persons commenting positively are white people who feel this fits the same irrational "jungle rage" narrative whites tell about blacks- that they violently attack without cause. Just not certain on it until I learn more.
(stateofanarchy)
Look at all the black people in the comment section saying: "stop generalizing us as criminals"
also black people "chink eyes/ching chang ching chang chong/you all look like Jackie Chan/Asian basketball players are all jeremy lins or Yao mings
The comments are pure gold, and the retarded cunt exemplifies WHY females are the problem and that the men have little if anything to do with it.
Females DO NOT belong on the battlefield, or in the boardroom, and thanks to feminism they are utterly worthless in the kitchen and a criminal liability in any bedroom.
[They are all reacting to the same poster]
Re: Nationalist 'leprosy' spreading in Europe, Macron says
(DiethylamideProphet)
In MY opinion we should strengthen the EU and have it become a federal organisation. We should have an official language (Even as a French i know that English would be the more logical and efficient choice) and some standards (for example for electrical norms).
Why should we destroy all the cultural and ethnic diversity and self-governance by melting every nation to a one rootless and superficial economical bloc?
This kind of union should happen everywhere in the world, with south america, parts of Asia, Africa, the middle east...
If the unions would be like EU is today, I would have no issue with them. The issues arise when these unions start having authority over different peoples and their self-governing nations.
To finally unite mankind under one flag, one language, one economical and social system. The next step or one of the steps used for this should also be a greater push for space exploration and the institution of colonies. Survival of the specie being the key.
I don't want a world where all the cultures and languages are wiped out by some utopian vision of a united mankind.
Ask yourself, if not constrained by fictional boundaries, scarcity or artificial differences, without the idea of nation states, without outdated notions of binary ideologies and the market as a motivational factor, what exactly is it that keeps us from achieving all that mankind dreams ? Nothing.
My dream is a culturally diverse planet where different peoples have the means to choose their own future with their own rules and customs. Not an artificial political entity with huge power but zero legitimacy in the eyes of these people, controlling us in ways that we don't even want.
(Spirit_Inc)
Well then you dreams has no chance of surviving, it will only end in conflict.
I would rather choose conflict now and peace later than believing in a fairy tail and getting hit in the head after.
Imagining that there would be no conflicts in "united mankind" is such a delusion and fairy tale you talk about.
What do you think will happen when there will be no national competition and conflicts? There will be racial, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts.
Nature hates vacuum.
Utopian ideologists are responsible for the most horrible atrocities in human history.
Still better than the stupid form of national institution we have right now.
Conflict can be solved if you have the will to do what need to be done also.
What is "better"? Do you know who religious and racist fanatics are? You will get that on global scale!
Same can be said about current way humans organize.
The idea of "humanity united under one flag" is more than obsolete. There will always be regions and cities, we are as close to the peaceful earth as it gets. Going further means global police state.
(denotative_designate)
Why should mankind be united under one flag?
That sounds like an entropic Christian hogwash to me.
(Zorthianator_V2)
Jesus dude, that's some fucked up naive, Star Trek, Sci-Fi bullshit that you just wrote.
Nah, I prefer to have my country, my culture and my language over some stitched up bullshit nation that usually ends with a shit ton of bloodshed.
Tribalism is human nature.
Woman tries to hang her child and grievously injures many in her attempt to flee. Is completely let off the hook because "her children need her"
(ArmondDillo)
Well she can murder them while still inside her, it's her body. After they're out, it's still her right, they came from her body. There are university professors which argue that murdering babies, ones that have been born, is moral. Feminists agree. Hillary Clinton was all for it.
(Sbeast)
She's proven by her behaviour she is not safe around children, and will try to murder them even though they are innocent, and yet the judge thinks they need to be together. WTF are they smoking!?!?
(The_Best_01)
They're smoking good ol' gynocentric bias. It's a hell of a drug kids.
(mrmcdude)
Well, you saw the picture of her crying in court. What was the judge supposed to do? Hold her responsible?
(VantagePoint2018)
To be fair, the claim isn't just "she's a woman" they are claiming abuse and mental illness nullify any ulterior motive.
"Karia’s young adult son from a previous marriage, Denys, wrote a letter to the court alleging that his father was abusive to Karia over many years since he met her and married her through a Ukrainian agency. He wrote that he would “menace” her with a gun and commit other acts of physical abuse"
At least according to her son and his audio recordings in this Star Tribune article that was posted here hours ago.
(Sbeast)
According to that logic, anyone can try to murder children and not go to prison as long as they have experienced some abuse in their life...
(ronin_in_the_wind)
That was the premise of a recent article advocating that women shouldn't go to prison because most crimes committed by women are a response to past abuses... the implication being that guys commit crimes because they're inherently evil.
(Luchadorgreen)
Misandric BS. The truth is that most people who commit crimes have probably had abuse at some point in their history.
(The_Best_01)
Written by the Gulag Guardian, no less. What a surprise.
(_pulsar)
Fuck that shit. I can see it being relevant if she murdered the dude who allegedly abused her, but she tied a noose around a child's neck and hung him up to die. I don't care what other people have done to you, if you hang a fucking child you should rot in prison forever.
(HeForeverBleeds)
This kind of thing honestly pisses me off more than anything
I posted about it here before, but when I was 5, my parents separated and my mother was given custody automatically, even though my dad was also trying to get custody and despite the fact that my mother was convicted for sexually abusing my dad, since he was 13-years-old when I was born, 12 when my mother got pregnant. Needless to say, my life with her was a living Hell
Anyone who hurts or abuses a child has already proven herself to be a danger to children, so obviously is an unfit parent. It's common sense that should go without saying. Yet this bullshit "children belong with their mothers" and "women are naturally good with kids" is so deeply ingrained that even pieces of shit like this cunt and my mother are allowed to raise children
Meanwhile, good men are being denied even joint custody
(Kyle_Fischer)
Oh good! So, if a woman ever did that to my son and I killed her, then I wouldn’t be sentenced to any prison because my son needs me. Amiright?
(GingerRazz)
I think this is not necessarily about men’s rights but rather about the justice system being fucked up. This goes far beyond women get more sympathy from judges“, I don’t think it happened just because she’s a woman
Give me an example where something like this happened to a man. Give me one example where a man gets murderously violent at his child and then gets mercy because his kids need their dad.
I don't know of any such examples, but I remember multiple cases similar to this where the accused/guilty is a woman.
Barack Obama says "men have been getting on my nerves lately" asks "what's wrong with us?"
(lostapwbm)
I tried to archive this garbage, but it didn't take.
“Women in particular, by the way, I want you to get more involved,” he said. “Because men have been getting on my nerves lately.”
Really? Because I'm practically in love with you.
Obama made the remark during a speech to the African Leadership Academy. “Everyday I read the newspaper and just think like ‘Brothers, what’s wrong with you guys? What’s wrong with us? We’re violent, we’re bullying. Just not handling our business,” he said.
Yes, let's learn from Barack Obama about violence and bullying.
THE WEDDING THAT BECAME A FUNERAL: U.S. STILL SILENT ONE YEAR ON FROM DEADLY YEMEN DRONE STRIKE
DRONE STRIKES UNDER OBAMA KILLED UP TO 117 CIVILIANS WORLDWIDE, INTELLIGENCE REPORT CLAIMS
Obama added Wednesday that “empowering more women” will “lead to some better policies.”
I disagree.
(fractureegg)
At one point during Obama's first term he was bombing 7 different countries at once. While radical leftists and some right-libertarians remained true to their anti-war principles, most Democrats suddenly stopped caring simply because a Democrat was in office. A similar thing happened under George W. Bush, when many Republicans suddenly stopped caring about constitutional protections. Tribalism is a helluva drug.
Like many male feminists Obama may just be projecting his own deviant sexual thoughts onto men as a whole. More likely he is simply a psychopath (like most politicians) and doesn't care one way or the other -- he's just being PC. In any case it's striking that the some of the most powerful MEN in the world are now making explicitly misandric comments in public even as virtually every major institution has become anti-male. Quite the "patriarchy" we have here.
Actually I think it's wrong to compare feminist societies to patriarchies; under patriarchies women are subject to paternalistic sexism, but they still have a number of profound privileges that males lack (being protected for example). Feminist societies produce no privileges whatsoever for males, and seek to eliminate all dignity from the lives of men and boys.
(TheMythof_Feminism)
I found it very difficult to understand why the U.S. re-elected that piece of garbage.
Obama will go down in history as the worst president the U.S. ever had, bar none.
(Lupinfujiko)
This upsets me.
With influenceable boys watching no less. Boys who grow up to be men will somehow be "inconvenient".
What the fuck is that.
Are we "getting on your nerves lately" Obama?
Is it because we like to assert fact or logic into our conversations?
Is it because we disagree with your disingenuous "1 in 5" debacle?
Is it because we pointed out the truth about the "wage gap"?
What a terrible, disingenuous, pandering shithead comment to make.
If a world leader had said that about women, it would be National news. It would spark a revolt. It would be "proof" of the "patriarchy".
Obama and the Democrats continue to disappoint.
And yet it won't matter how progressive, anti-racist, and humanitarian these leftist White South Africans are when the black lynch mobs come for them. A White South African could constantly virtue signal against White supremacy and apartheid, become an asset to society by creating a successful business and hiring a bunch of black people, create charities that helped blacks, et cetera - and yet they'll still be scapegoated, mugged, raped, tortured, and murdered.
And that should serve as a lesson to all of the White shitlibs across the White Western world who think that being an SJW will spare them from persecution and oppression once they're vulnerable and despised minorities in their own countries. Most brown and black people are always going to lag behind Whites economically because they have lower polygenic scores when it comes to SES. But they'll never admit that their shortcomings are genetically caused, and so they have no choice but to scapegoat Whites - all Whites - for their shortcomings.
The anti-White ideology being promulgated by White leftists is feeding into this non-White victimhood mentality and militarizing people of color against us, which will make them feel completely justified in persecuting us once we're vulnerable minorities. That's exactly what we're seeing playing out in South Africa.
Post-apartheid South Africa has also taught us that the greatly increased societal dysfunction caused by non-White rule will also be blamed on White racism. The ANC in South Africa routinely blames their inability to keep the national power grid working, their high crime rates, their corruption, and their economic failings on apartheid and White racism - even though those same cities were doing great under White rule during apartheid.
South Africa's gradual collapse since the end of apartheid is a direct consequence of the genetically-caused black inability to create and maintain highly successful societies, and the same exact thing will happen throughout the White Western world as we get demographically replaced by low-IQ people of color.
Here's why the Russia conspiracy is the greatest conspiracy of all time
I see this line thrown around a ton and they are absolutely correct but for the wrong reason.
The Russia conspiracy is the greatest conspiracy of all time because it shows how quick the public will believe a "conspiracy theory" as soon as the news tells them too.
Are you brainwashed? Of course even if you were you would believe the opposite even stronger to the point of anger and projection. Is that what we are seeing? You tell me.
You might think that you are repeating facts, the interesting part as that no single fact is allowed to be questioned. What is the common response if someone dares to question a single event such as the "States voting system that were hacked" (they weren't), the "power outage that was hacked" ("it wasn't"), the dossier that accused the wrong person of the same name as being in Russia when it was proven he was not and included several spelling mistakes a document of that level would not have, the constant use of vague nonsense phrases like "election hacking" or "hacking of democracy" that no one can actually explain quantitatively, etc? They bring the logic in a circle and say, " oh well what about the rest of it (i.e. the inditements, texts, etc).
If quickly brush off "facts" being debunked that we're used as evidence then you are falling victum to confirmation bias and have lost much of the credibility you think you have.
If this conspiracy is so true then why are "credible" news outlites putting out so much false information and selectively ignoring the information that goes against it? Wouldn't you want to see a unbiased picture or do you want to see the picture those in power have created for you, "Trump is hitler and must be removed at all costs"?
Im not telling you what to believe. Treat the idea of Trump being right as a fantasy, play with it assume it is true ask yourself what would it look like? Is it possible? Could I be wrong? If you aren't willing to accept the possibility of being wrong why is that?
If you respond that I am insane or insult me or show any signs of anger, whataboutism, or accusing me of being a Trump supporter or "Russian apologists" (The most egregious crime apparently? Why is that?) you are proving my point
Now High Schools are teaching young girls that the difference between "flirting" and "sexual harassment" is totally based on how it makes a woman feel. ie: If Chad talks with her = Flirting, If Incel talks with her = Sexual Harassment.
(WalkinWaski1)
"Just put yourself out there, bro! Just go and try with her, you got nothing to lose except your virginity, haha!"
Go to jail for sexual harassment
([deleted])
I mean that was always the case, but to see it become official teaching material... just fucking unreal.
(Toolman890)
imprison whoever wrote this
(ALovelyPlace)
How can anybody deny the blackpill now? Just approach females bro, it's a numbers game bro.
(Sudden_Pear)
I think any woman would feel insulted by me speaking to her. I’m 5’4 and ugly as hell, if I talk to a woman she thinks that I think I have a shot with her. That means she’s genetically inferior and within my reach. I shouldn’t even talk to women according to this chart.
(Waqui98)
Incel: Hello, may i say you look absolutely stunning today.
Her: You feel bad that a genetic subhuman complemented you.
Chad: Ayy girl bring that phat ass ova here!
Her: You feel good that a chad noticed your booty.
(DaiMiVsi4ko)
Wtf is wrong with this society. It's all getting worse and worse by the minute.
(UramiSan)
I can feel the equality in this book, boys!
(snatcher9)
Wow.. soon it will be a federal crime for an ugly male like me to approach women at all.
I find this show the most horrible on earth. I am also disgusted at how bad of a person Chris Hansen is. He knows he's (basically) ending another man's life and he's just sitting there calm about it. I'm all for them getting their punishments etc., but not censoring their faces/voice and airing their name for the entire world to see is just wrong.
It's not like any of the people on the show is actively looking for 13 year olds because in reality, there is no 13 year old cute girl in adult chat rooms looking for a 45 year old perv to lose her virginity to. They're just putting out dream-come-true scenarios that are too good to be true with young cute girls willing to do anything for free, and some dumb guys falls for it. So far, has there even been 1 single guy on this show that had any record of previous sexual charges against minors? I don't think so.
Rape is sexual intercourse without the other party's consent. Children can't consent. All sex with children is rape, you sick fuck.
Shut the fuck up you dumb fucking douchebag. Rape=/=Child sexual abuse. She wanted it, it's still illegal, I know. But quit saying "raping a child". And besides, he wasn't going to rape a child, he was going to talk to Christ Hansen.
Shut the fuck up, you're so retarded it hurts. I honestly wish there was a retard-lock for reddit so that people like you would get the fuck away. But RES block function will have to do the job for now, bye you dumb fucking loser. :)
my girlfriend of a little over a year was raped 3 or 4 years before I met her. I didn't know for a while until she mentioned it to me once, and she explained that she was drugged at a party and raped. She knows who did it and never pressed charges or took any action against him because she was so ashamed.
I love her to death. I don't think any differently of her and the intimacy issues that come from her experience are minor enough for us to work through without any real problems. But god damn to I not want to find that son of a bitch and choke the life out of him with my bare hands, whispering her name into his ears so he remembers and realizes why he's dying by my hands.
This will probably get buried but it was kind of cathartic for me to get this out, I've never really talked to anyone about it.
She probably give him the "come on", while she was inhibited, then realised it was wrong, and decided to tell a lie instead of facing up to her own cheating.
Be careful - it happens more than you might think, and then some innocent bro gets a beating he didn't deserve.
Re: Benevolent Sexism Attractive To Women, Study Shows
(hirayama_ronin)
Just a comment to posters, why post studies without a comment of your own?
The purpose of the following observations is to situate what counts as benevolent sexism, according to the study's authors. The purpose of the study is to meet research into what is called benevolent sexism (the definition of which the authors may or may not agree with), with "parental investment theory."
However, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is eye-watering.
The following is quoted in the article, word for word from the study.
“Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women.”
Benevolent sexism includes attempts to achieve intimacy with women. This is either an Andrea Dworking-style, "all sex is rape" definition of sexism, that categorically places normal gendered behavior into a politically hostile ghetto (of rape or sexism), or it's a very poorly worded definition on the part of the study's authors.
There isn't a single example of benevolent sexism offered in the introduction that would situate the author's definition. It moves immediately to supposed consequences of BS (a convenient short-hand).
Here are the studies in support of this idea:
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491
I don't have access to this literature to see how their work grounds this definition.
Here are some examples found in the "Supplemental Materials" section at the end of the study:
Study 1a, BS condition
He feels that, no matter how accomplished he is, he is not truly complete as a person without the love of a woman. He thinks that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that in general women are more pure than men and they tend to have a superior moral sensibility. Mark thinks that women should be cherished and protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that women should be helped before men.
Study 1a, non-BS condition
He feels that he can be truly complete as a person without the love of a woman, especially if he is personally accomplished. He doesn't think that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that neither sex is superior with respect to purity or moral sensibility. He thinks that women should not necessarily be cherished or protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that a person's sex should not be a factor determining who is helped first.
Despite the “romantic” undertone, researchers noted, benevolent sexism still reinforces the notion that women are inferior.
In Study 2a, we find BS in how a man might help a woman. The study participants were offered two men, Robert and John, who were identical in every way, except in particular behaviors:
Robert/John and John/Robert are both colleagues of yours. You have got to know them both a bit because you have often worked in pairs with one or the other and you have attended a few meetings and short business trips with each of them. They both look about the same physically and they are both about as competent at their job as each other.
You have noticed that they behave slightly differently at times though. For example, on one occasion when you were attending a short business trip with Robert/John, you had to get from a train station to the hotel where your conference meeting was being held. The taxi had not turned up so you decided you had to walk in order to get there in time. It was December and it was very cold. [BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, Robert/John took his coat off and gave it to you, even though he only had a thin suit jacket on underneath. On another occasion later that same month, you had been on another short business trip with John/Robert. It was still very cold and you were walking from the train station back to your office and it was about the same distance you had to walk in the cold last time. [non-BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, John/Robert, who was wearing a thin suit jacket under his coat, did not offer to give you his coat.
Reading into this, I assume "attempts to achieve intimacy with women" means "attempts to charm women (into intimacy) by giving them preferential treatment."
Discussion
What feminism-driven research is attempting to do, which the authors of these studies is disrupting, is to position the preferential treatment of women as politically damaging treatment. This is actually a position I tend to agree with. I personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful.
The problem is that feminism allows women to problematize the preferential treatment shown to them (turning a prima facie positive into a subtle negative), while benefiting from preferential treatment. It's grabbing resources, attention, and affirmation from men, while punishing men for offering those resources, attention, and affirmation, packaging it up as a form of political oppression (patriarchy), which men are solely responsible for.
Studies like this cut through the nonsense. It says: benevolent sexism may have negative consequences, but it's desired by women:
We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest.
If women express this unconscious bias toward BS men, even when they have conscious knowledge of the supposed negative effects of BS upon women politically, feminists can no longer claim BS is a product of male supremacy. It is a joint product of deep reproductive politics, for which women must take their share of the responsibility, as they take their share of the benefits of being placed on the pedestal.
As always,
feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality.
(SophisticatedBean)
personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful
Not doing so appears to cause PMS though.
feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality
I guess we can shorten that to feminism ? equality.
Women will always be on the pedestal because men are hardwired to care for women and women are not hardwired for reciprocity. Instead, they are hardwired to exploit and to be unwilling to settle with a partner of lower rank. (The alternative would also be unstable anyway as a stronger male in her mating pool would be able to threaten her decision if she decided for a weaker male.)
So the patriarchy is exactly a means of counteracting this innate anti-(beta)-male bias; it is basically egalitarianism. It basically artificially makes men more attractive by rituals, affirmative action (e.g. boys-only domains/clubs), strict rank enforcement and economic dependence such that women more likely feel like actually having a valuable/high-status partner. This should also allow women to experience more orgasms in a monogamous society as they orgasm more the higher the economic status and confidence of their partner is. Not doing so should theoretically make monogamous bonds unstable and we are indeed seeing a growing divorce rates. Another prediction is that more men should be rendered unable to impress a woman by their relative socioeconomic rank; and fewer males should be motivated by classical courtship and incentives for achievements of founding a family, both of which should reduce overall reduce cultural drive, which we are likely seeing too (incels, Hikikomoris, opioid crisis; though all of those have an economic component).
Now, one might expect the negative utility listed above might have been canceled out by the utility of an improvement of women's lives, but it looks like feminism has not even made women happier as career-oriented women seem to often find themselves in positions in which they are not very satisfied because they cannot find a satisfying mate or because their career conflicts with motherhood. I also suspect feminism even increases BS, because men are being raised to be so agreeable, intimidated and soft that they fulfill any wishes. There is positive utility in shape of increased economic productivity, but it's questionable to which extent that has actually made us happier. Positive emotion is mostly associated with goal pursuit (cocaine, emphatemine), and as goals are becoming diffuse, gender-incompatible or unattainable, it obviously makes us less happy.
.
.
.
That said, the study posted by OP surprised me since even self-described feminists preferred the explicitly sexist hypothetical male.
Some women are sneaky like that. I think it is a result of the lack of true female-male or female-female competition. We are seeing the same in the lack of true competition due to declining economic growth in the West: things start to become corrupt, improper and sneaky because the free market does not eliminate behavior and assumptions that are misaligned with reality. The raise of bullshit jobs. Women are basically chronically in this position because they are mostly always desired by men for their reproductive organs largely irrespective of their behavior and assumptions. Which does not mean that this expresses in all women to pathological degree or that men do not have their own gender-specific pathologies, but feminism, even though it probably had the intention of improving this has actually made it worse by making men more feminine/agreeable and by eliminating corrective feedback targeted at women.
The thing I hate the most about women...is that to them, the most attractive traits are things that men cannot change: Height. Race. Hair (type). Facial bones. Frame. Eye Color. These are things that cannot be changed without devoting thousands of dollars into potentially life threatening surgery.
Meanwhile, women literally only need to be relatively slim (even a little chubby) to get attention from men. They'll deny it all day long saying how "weight isn't a choice" and "muh body positivity", but anyone who's done a few seconds of research into fat loss knows that these morons are making excuses for laziness.
Women have it so fucking easy it's a joke. This right here is why I'll never have any sympathy for fat women, either. Only a handful of men are considered attractive to women, and the reason for that is because they're attracted to the traits that men cannot change. Only a handful of men were lucky enough to be born with the traits that women find desirable. Pass me the fucking rope.
People need to listen to Weev talking about the Chinese, look at the areas they're concentrated in America. Look at how they view human life, their people are disposable and they have hundreds of millions of them. If we lose 200 million each they win by default. They're investing in their navy and their populations are concentrated on the coast, it's looking increasingly like there is a long term invasion plan of America after they've bought out a lot more land and flooded the country with more of their people. I wouldn't be surprised if I see them launch a full scale attack in my lifetime at all.
We need to stop international capitalism ASAP if we don't want China to literally be SuperJewsTM.
China does suck because China is the CCP. The ethnic people in the regions who haven't been sucked into the Han rudeness, disrespect, selfishness and classlessness have cultures that don't suck. Tibetan culture doesn't suck. Uighur culture doesn't suck. Even Malaysian Chinese culture doesn't suck. It's China that sucks.
So are you saying China is better? And you're trying to start an argument on this? That's just the attitude China has which pisses people off. Chinese act like they own Thailand and Thailand should be lucky to have Chinese visiting. It's ridiculous. But anyway, we don't have plastic rice, we don't eat dogs, we don't put random meats in food and call it chicken, we don't cause animals to go extinct, we don't pollute everywhere we go, we don't fish used oil out of drains to cook food in, we don't let out kids poop in public, etc etc. We also know how to queue. We are also a hell of a lot better at enforcing regulations. Our air is also way cleaner and breathable. Still feel good up there in your pedestal?
Yeah not gonna feel sorry for actually using land that someone else left empty. The only pre-Columbian peoples who even did anything with it were in central and south America so go complain to the people there too.
Ultimately if we want a better society that takes resources and letting everyone sit on top of loads of good farmland and minerals while they live as hunter gatherers isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I think this applies to most of the world then. Israel was stolen from the Jews some thousand years ago so of course they deserve to settle the whole of Palestine. Of course, anyone can now go to Australia as that was taken from the natives. Everyone feel free to move to South Africa as well. Hey didn't Germany used to be much much bigger? Maybe open the borders to Austria since that was stolen from the Reich. Didn't some Amazonian tribe win a patch of land from another in 1764? Let's flood their isolated Amazonian settlements with some Ghanans?
Re: Self defense: Chinese man got provoked/beaten down by Pakistani twice in Nanjing then stabbed paki with knife.
(psylee123)
who the hell do these Pakis think they are, especially when they come to our country? gtfo.
(zsXie10)
CPC paid those scums each 80,000 RMB per year for studing in China.
(Chinesepatriot84)
Typical foreigner in China, has a Chinese Lu girlfriend and insults the natives. When is someone going to do something about it?
(zsXie10)
CPC shields these halal Smoking Drunk pakis. You cannot do anything.
(The_Red_Dragon88)
we need to do this more to foreign scum
(zsXie10)
I hope paki brownie media could widely spread this shit.
(Hund-kex)
Bad move, now his other 3 child brides and half of his clan gonna be gunning for him.
No one force them to move to China. They come here with 20 man families in tow from shitholes to seek a better life at Chinese taxpayers’ expense and they want to talk about jealousy?
They think themselves so powerful picking on normal people going on about their lives. Just look at their faces when people fight back and the authorties starts knocking.
(zsXie10)
A good lesson for Pakis in Pakistan shithole.
(kriswuisagod)
GOAT. Why are these pakis even in China trying to start shit.
(zsXie10)
CPC's genius plan.
(bangkokmonger)
what do you expect from pakis? In britain they bloody gang rape children. Look at rotherham and all the child grooming cases. They don't see other groups a people just as prey, especially children and women
(RanJinu)
The irony is that in some Asian board, we have to lump together with south Asian like them, and no mention of their problems can be made.
What really annoys me is when shitlibs respond to our complaints over our racial dispossession by telling us that there's nothing stopping us from moving to a White community. Yeah, we could all flee the cultural and economic hubs of our countries and move out to the middle of nowhere, but why the fuck should we be content with that shit sandwich? And how in the fuck can anyone possibly argue that iconic White cities like London don't rightfully belong to the White race?
This White Flight "solution" to mass non-White immigration into the White Western would be like telling the Japanese to flee to the mountains if they still want to live in homogeneous communities. Motherfucker, it's their country - all of it. It's the fucking non-Asians that should leave, not the Japanese. And yet we Whites are expected to plead with the leftist race traitors and non-Whites for small places to call our own in our own fucking countries. It's outrageous and a perfect example of how cucked modern White people are.
I don't really think that this should be a debate over how friendly or intelligent an immigrant group is. Most White Western expats are extremely nice, are better educated than the local population, commit low crime rates, and contribute more to the society through taxes than they take out through government handouts. And yet non-White people still don't want millions of us to flood into their countries and make them minorities in their own cities.
Heck, I don't even like seeing White expats in non-White countries. It's fucking weird seeing White expats wearing traditional Japanese attire and taking part in traditional Japanese cultural events. It would be even weirder if these White expats had these "fuck you" attitudes that non-White immigrants have in White Western countries where they unapologetically colonize your country while maintaining their own native culture. Could you imagine if Americatowns spread across Japan where you have entire cities speaking English and refusing to adopt the native culture?
And brown and black people don't have any problems with being racist towards us in our own countries and openly declaring their desire to keep us out of "their" communities. Just look at the huge number of brown and black people that now live in White Western societies freaking the fuck out whenever we White people start to recolonize our own cities. Brown and black people are completely flipping their shit over "gentrification", which is obviously a euphemistic dog whistle for racist brown and black people wanting to keep White people out of "their" neighborhoods (even though those neighborhoods were White and better off a few decades ago).
Tolerating immigrant groups like Sikhs might seem harmless at first, but if you understand the long-term consequences of adopting these dangerously permissive and welcoming attitudes towards foreign immigrants, then you'll quickly realize that your permissive and tolerant attitudes will result in White people becoming minorities in one neighborhood after the next, and then one city after the next, and then eventually becoming minorities in one country after the next - as is predicted to happen in America, Canada, Britain, Sweden, et cetera, over the next few decades.
When is it morally acceptable for we White people to put our foot down and stop our racial dispossession? When we're down to comprising only 75% of our national population? 65%? 60%? 55%? 51%? Or is it never morally acceptable to close our borders and prevent our racial dispossession? Are we just supposed to warmly welcome and celebrate our racial demise because Sikhs are supposedly model minorities, and because not doing so is dangerously racist and akin to slavery, lynchings, and the holocaust?
Pushing all of those ridiculous - and yet commonly presented - arguments against White nativism aside, I'd argue that keeping Sikhs and other non-White groups out of our countries can be justified on simple demographic mathematics alone. After all, there's more Indians in the world than there is White people. One fucking brown country has more people in it than the entire global White community combined. And so obviously we have to be hyper-vigilant when it comes to preventing mass Indian immigration into our societies because only 1% of their population migrating to a small White country will cause those White people to become minorities in their own homeland. That's why it's extremely important to realize that a certain level of racism - such as opposing non-White immigration into our countries - is simply necessary if we want to exist 100+ years from now.
It's nothing personal, but you Sikhs (and non-White people in general) have to be kept out of our countries if we simply want to survive as a race. Go be model citizens back in your own countries. Your native countries need all of the help that they can get. We'll be just fine without you.
And besides, why would you want to be a minority anyway? Wouldn't you rather live in a country dominated by our own people where you're completely free to be yourself? Don't you yearn to be back in India surrounded by your own kind? Don't you wish that you could see people that look like you respected in the media that you consume? Why would you want to put up with racist stereotypes like Apu and "thank you, come again"? Why would you want to be forced to conform to our social norms? Why would you want to worry about some random yahoo confusing your turban as Islamic terrorist garb and assaulting you? And why would you want to live in a country that will never fully accept you?
And don't you care that you're making the native population feel uncomfortable by colonizing their country? I'd personally be racked with guilt if millions of White people flooded into Japan and tried to force the locals to bend to our will and represent us in their media. And yet I don't think that I've even seen a single non-White person express guilt for making White people minorities in their own countries. On the contrary, they act as if we White Westerners have some kind of moral obligation to just completely bend over for them even though they'd never bend over for us if the roles were reversed.
Non-White immigrants actually have the balls to get in our face, denounce us as racists, physically assault us, and even show up with loaded semi-automatic rifles to shut down our speech by force if we try to stand up for our own racial interests in our own countries. Non-White people would never tolerate that level of disrespect in their own countries unless we forced ourselves upon them through old school military imperialism.
What a perfect testament to how cucked White people have become, which non-White people have picked up on instinctually. Much like how wild animals have become increasingly aggressive towards man after the environmental and conservationist movement severely reduced hunting, so too have people of color lost their fear of the White man due to the liberal "anti-racist" cultural revolution in recent decades. They know that we've become a bunch of pathologically ethnomasochistic cowards. And they know that the liberal media and countless extremely well-funded "anti-hate" NGOs have their back. And so they have no respect for us and absolutely zero fear of us retaliating against them as they brazenly get in our faces and push us around in our own countries.
And it's not like appealing to them morally will make a difference. The only thing that they'll respect is a reemergence and reassertion of unapologetic White ethnocentrism. And that's ultimately why the Alt-Right exists, and that's why people of color and self-hating Whites are so militantly opposed to us. They know that we have a liberal boot on our necks which is keeping us down, and they have absolutely zero interest in letting us get back on our own feet again. They instead want to finish off we "bad" Whites ("good" Whites hate themselves and support open borders) and kill us off for good by putting even more weight on our necks through increased mass non-White immigration and suppression of our speech.
And the supposedly nice and friendly Sikhs will reveal their shared animosity towards we "bad" Alt-Right Whites as they join in with the other non-White and White leftist mobs that violently attack our real world events and advocate for laws that criminalize our speech. And that's why the "model minorities" rhetoric doesn't fool the Alt-Right. Whether these non-White people in our countries are model minorities or degenerate ghetto brown trash, they're completely united in preventing White Westerners from reclaiming their own countries and preventing their racial demise.
And as you pointed out in a previous post on this subreddit, a lot of these people are hardcore ethnic nationalists themselves who are basically only living in White Western countries in order to make more money. So they're a 5th column security threat on top of being a unwanted foreign colonizer.
The indictment of these "Russian spies" is bullshit.
It's already been shown, months ago, that the DNC computers (and various voting machines) had been accessed by other domestic computers. There's no evidence included in the indictment other than what Meuller says they found, and there's nothing showing that they "hacked" or "manipulated" our elections in any way.
Does anyone here think that "The Russians" would even be capable of this without the NSA/CIA knowing at the time? They have more covert cyber capability than our own agencies?
It's also been shown that our own three-letter agencies and those of another shitty little Mid-East country can easily mimic an originating hack or email or whatever as being from another country, as if that would even be necessary in this "because we say so" indictment. A nice bonus is that now the Russians can be blamed for Seth Rich. Yeah, they really wanted him gone, with all his efforts on voting accessibility, LO fuckin L.
Anything that comes out of the MSM that makes Russia an enemy can be called into question, because Putin/Russia have never come out to call the U.S. an "enemy" – other than to mention how fucked-up our foreign policy is. It's that simple.The fact that Wolf Blitzer got John Podesta on the phone to comment is fucking in-your-face absurd.
It's also nice cover for Imran Awan, DWS, the Clintons and everyone else who have guilt written all over them and have been screaming "RUSSIA" for months.
Edit: The three components for finding guilt in any crime are means, motive and opportunity. I think all three are in question here, but especially "motive" for the Russians, when they can just sit back and watch us fuck ourselves domestically. They've already shown a low tolerance for anything within 100 miles of their borders, which is more than we can say.
This is a gender critical sub. This is an anti-gender sub.
So why the fuck are we not only allowing, but WELCOMING WITH OPEN ARMS; TIMs who claim to be "transsexual" and "not like the others," TIMs who say they don't believe they're biologically female but still insist on dressing up like women and pretending to be one, TIFs who want to be a "trans inclusive radical feminist"
So, people of this sub act like being transgender is a misogynist and homophobic act, which it is. Until, of course, a trans person comes along and says "n-not all TIMS! waah! i'm a good guy" and suddenly you guys are like OMG HOLY SHIT, LISTEN TO THIS FUCKING ORACLE OF WISDOM! SEE! NOT ALL TIMS ARE BAD! WE MUST LISTEN TO OUR GAY GENDER CRITICAL BRETHREN!
Yet a woman shares a slightly different opinion and she is shunned.
Yet a non-trans male simply makes a post and he's told to leave.
But sure, these creepy ass "transsexuals" can rub their dicks all over this sub with ill intent and it's all fine! Totally ignoring the fact that the majority of "truscum" are right wing MRA types! Yeah!
Hypergamy usually spells trouble for relationships long term. You can make up, for example, a big income disparity by being an amazing wife, mother and keeping a great home - but feminists have convinced women they should take take take and giving back is something women only did in the 1950s.
It's a lot trickier trying to make up for wealth with physical attractiveness alone - because age is going to be the equaliser here. The beautiful 25 year old who gets with the 35 year old investment banker when he's rich - well, when he's 50 he's still going to be rich, but she's going to be 40 and her looks fading fast. Now if she was a terrific wife and mother in those 15 years - they'll probably stay together. If it was clear by the way she treated him he was just a meal ticket - well, she can't really complain when she gets replaced by a young model.
Like immigrants being used to undermine the kind of labor negotiations that halted the advance of communism? Unions were critical to keeping the United States together in the mid 20th century. And immigrants (along with other neoliberal policies) are undermining that.
Who wants to bet that these IQ-linked genes won't be evenly distributed across "population groups" (aka, races)? I'm willing to bet my entire bank account that the widely observed racial IQ hierarchy that we've known about for decades will line up almost perfectly with these genome-wide polygenic scores. Likewise for socioeconomic class hierarchies (aka, social Darwinism). Is the anti-racist, anti-classist, social constructionist, egalitarian left willing to do the same? Yeah, that's what I thought...
I remember getting into a really heated debate on the old /r/AltRight subreddit about 2 years ago with a couple of the mods at /r/science that claimed to be professional geneticists. They laughed at my argument that we were probably only 5 to 10 years away from being able to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. I argued that when that became a reality, all of the "social constructionist" leftists that have completely dominated and corrupted both the scientific and academic community for decades would finally be exposed as the lying frauds that they so obviously are - which, again, they laughed off as being pseudoscientific nonsense.
I linked them some blog posts like this one and some video lectures like this one from Stephen Hsu because I had been following his work for several years, and so I was aware of the pioneering research that he was doing on this topic. But they were too lazy to read the blog posts or watch the lectures, which should give you an idea of how close-minded and politically biased and motivated that sub and the larger scientific community is...
Instead of trying to understand why I thought that Stephen Hsu was on to something, they instead argued that we'll probably never be able to accurately predict IQ based on DNA alone because intelligence is only partially heritable and because the portion of human intelligence that is heritable involves several thousand different genes that are interacting in impossibly complex ways.
Lots of other geneticists and academics felt the same exact way about DNA-based height predictors because height is also only partially heritable and relies on the complex interactions of thousands of different genes. But thanks to the work of a group of researchers that Stephen Hsu was a member of, we now have a DNA-based height predictor that can predict someone's height to within an inch.
And the reason why that's so important is because we can use pretty much the same exact technique that they used to create accurate DNA-based height predictors to create accurate DNA-based IQ predictors. Stephen Hsu argues that we simply need to analyze the genomes of about a million people and give them IQ tests in order to create an accurate DNA-based IQ predictor. Right now researchers are mostly relying on rough proxies for IQ like academic performance and years of completed education, but that's not as good as actual IQ tests.
And another reason why the advent of DNA-based predictors for highly polygenic human traits like height and IQ is so important is because it will allow us to greatly improve the genetic health of our species (aka, eugenics). As I wrote in more detail here, pretty soon we're going to have the ability to walk into a fertility clinic with our wives and then be able to pick the embryo with the highest IQ. And then shit is really going to get wild when we have the technical know-how to utilize precision gene editing in order to safely select all of the genes and alleles linked to intelligence while also avoiding harmful pleiotropic effects, which will produce the smartest people to ever live in all of human history.
And it's fucking sad that we have to rely on based, politically incorrect Asian researchers like Stephen Hsu in order to push through the wall of leftist, social constructionist, anti-racist, and anti-classist biases that completely dominate the West's academic and scientific institutions - which is largely being caused by Jewish and gentile shitlibs. I guess that that will be one of the benefits of China's rise and mass Asian immigration into the West.
I remember reading an article that predicted that China was on track to surpassing America and the West in about 50 years when it came to producing the top 1% of scientific papers which get cited by other scientists. And while China surpassing the West will obviously suck for us overall, one of the benefits for we Alt-Right hereditarians is that both science and academia will lurch back to the hereditarian right - which will move our species forward and rehabilitate the much-maligned reputations of the pioneering Western scientific racists and eugenicists of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Nobody on the left in California likes to talk about how the gay marriage ballot referendum was mostly shut down by blacks and Hispanics.
Sometimes I think they are being disingenuous but then sometimes I think the white left really is this dumb.
I encourage intersectionalism because it will inevitably be the left’s undoing.
Their leadership and funding is gay, white and Jewish while their voter base is composed of minorities who hate gays and whites. Sounds like a good plan guys
And in fact, the current multiracial experiment of the US has never been done before in history, and certainly not successfully. Historically the rare incidents of racial diversification always resulted in collapse.
The alt right is not really suggesting any 'new' idea that was never tried before while our opponents just want the US to continue being what made it 'great'. It is actually the alt right which would like to stick to old ways and our opponents are engaged in a wild utopian vision that no American politician would have dreamed of prior to world war II.
The problem is historically wealthy whites have relied too much on cheap non-white labour, this is much of the problem with whites in South Africa too.
A lot of farm murders in South Africa happen as a result of white farmers employing lots of blacks on their farms, and then inevitably a black gets angry and holds a grudge against the farmer and comes back at night with a gang of his black thug friends and tortures and murders him and his family.
If only whites in South Africa didn't employ blacks they'd avoid a huge amount of problems. I can't fathom why white South Africans would employ people they surely are aware are violent and unpredictable, clearly many of them value money over their own wellbeing.
The Chinese get it right in this regard. Chinese in Africa don't employ blacks in their businesses, they bring over workers from China to do the menial labour. It probably costs them more overall, but they get much more intelligent, productive workers than lazy, low IQ blacks who are liable to get angry and murder them.
(DaddyFunkoCollector)
I experienced the biggest black pill today.
I met up with a few of my friends to go out. Before that my one friend was going to meet up with a girl he and I are aquatinted with. This girl has all of her friends down. They’re playing never have I ever. My friend jokingly joins in and says “Never have I ever sucked a dick” all the girls put a finger down. I learned today’s these girls have fucked random guys, sucked random guys off, done anal, stripped, been filmed, and one of these girls fucked two guys at the same time.
These girls are 15 years old.
(BlackPillOverkill)
I remember playing truth or dare with friends and slutty girls. They made out for a minute, twerked on one of my friends and even showed their tits to one of them. Whenever they got dared to do anything with me they chose the penalty (cold water down the shirt or a bitchslap to the face) over kissing me on the cheek, sitting on my lap or even flashing me. It was degrading and after the 4th penalty skip I just kicked them out of my truck and went home to play TF2. Nobody gave a shit and they were upset that I took my truck home so they had to sit on the sidewalk. Being the deciding factor of a dare is fucking degrading. I’m glad those two girls ended up welfare whores.
(Ryzu1)
God you just made me remember my worst nightmares. The exact fucking shit happened to me.
(wuschelweich)
I dont believe that girls where such sluts when I was a teen in the late 90s. Something has fundamentaly changed but I cant put my finger on it..
(SoyIsGoy)
(((Them)))
(de_throni)
There was no widely available fast internet so it was better hidden than nowadays. But it still happened on a large scale.
(invdur)
You're 100% right. That's why I fucking despise people saying "Oh, but back in our days, X was so much better!", that's complete fucking bullshit and you know it, you just didn't see it happen as often/much.
(wuschelweich)
Yes, perhaps I just wasn't in those circles. I mean there was always talk of girls being more mature and more experienced than boys the same age. And the girls usually also had boyfriends that were a few years older. Me and my boys were more into punk music and lan parties. When I started finding girls interesting they were already far ahead of me..
(joeybuns)
I remember a couple years back we where playing this on boxing day me, my two mates and a girl abd the girl came out with the most hoe shit imaginable, multiple three ways with guys and girls, if there was anything sexual she'd done, my mates cousin banged her in a hotel bathroom floor while my mate banged her friend (who had a bf at the time and on still with that guy) and now that same girl is dating someone in the RAF (judging by his looks I doubt he's slept with alot of women)
(IncelForever404)
I mean I feel like even most incels have a chance at that age. Who isn't fucking?
(Ryzu1)
You're right I might have had a chance if I wasn't so autistic that I got bullied by my entire class. I had zero clue about social norms back then.
(sparkyyy1337)
I was even bullied by my teachers lol. I sat next to this fat kid and the teacher told him (I overheard it) "You are misbehaving but it's not your fault, soon we're gonna take care of 'the problem' and you'll be good". Two weeks later he gave me an F and I failed (my grades sucked but I never averaged anywhere close to actually failing).
Slavs seem to be one of the more controversial groups of whites when it comes to whether they are fully white or not, possibly even more so than Spanish and Greeks.
On the whole Slavs seem to be a bit more "savage" and primitive in their mentality than other whites which implies more non-white admixture than other white groups.
Also, Eastern Europe seems to get poorer, more violent and more chaotic the further east you go, suggesting that the level of civilisation decreases the more the non-white admixture increases.
For example, the Czech Republic is a Slavic country but the people have a lot of German influence racially as well as culturally and it is a safe and fairly developed country. However, moving further east if you consider a country like Ukraine, it is much poorer, more violent and more chaotic.
Even lesbians admit there's no such thing as a "femcel"
(azucel)
IT blown into the next galaxy
(geneticwaste43)
Men are disposable trash
(WahmenMustDIe)
Very True.
This is the cucked world we live in boyos
(DarkTimes229)
You guys ever read about the chick who went undercover as a dude and fucking hated it?
(SignorSolitudine)
And the only thing she liked about being a dude was the camarederie she had with other males that she couldn’t find with her girlfriends
(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)
I wish I were gay
(AestheticOutcast)
Norah Vincent, author of "Self Made Man". She genuinely had to check herself into a mental hospital after living one month as a male. No, I'm not joking.
"She continued her emotional descent, and a week later, checked in to a hospital with severe depression. Identity, she concluded, was not something to play around with."
I couldn't find this in the article, but I remember from her book (bought it used because fuck roasties, even though she lived as a man for a little while she still wasn't blackpilled, just more aware) that the absolute best part was her going on dates.
She essentially said "When I went on dates as a lesbian, I'd get attention and they'd usually go well. When I went on dates as a man, despite being the same exact person personality-wise, the girls would always ignore me, caring more about their phones than me, and treat me with disdain. They'd also rarely ask questions about me as a human being, opting only to ask about my career. I'd also have to pay for everything, or get snarky looks."
(Carkudo)
It's been done to death and someone on the other side already did a comprehensive post on why it doesn't count because all her experiences are not real and just delusions brought on by her own internalized misogyny.
(IncelGoingHisOwnWay)
Funny seeing even women giving out the blackpill, only morons deny it at this point.
(Shakakhan5528)
It is probably shaking their heads,she's lieing she's lieing it's really a man !! Crys in their soy
(RobAmory)
So can lesbians be incel?
(maskedcel)
Normies don't mind the truth as long as it's coming out of the mouth of a woman.
Things are only going to get worse. We're moving from a monogamous society to a polygamous one. Things will become more unstable going forward. Polygamous society's are inherently violent. Not only because completely untethered bored young men are a dangerous demographic but also because in a technological society beta rampages can become extremely bloody. Beta rampages such as those seen in Isla Vista and Toronto are becoming a pattern just like mass school shootings have since Columbine.
What happens when a highly intelligent and motivated sociopath decides to go on a beta rampage? A Brevik or a McVeigh character who is intelligent and motivated enough to do some real damage. So far the body count has been mercifully low.
Nor is society doing the right thing to try and placate and control these men.
These men are subject to dishonest advice and extremely condescending attitudes and in some cases are harassed and are having what few things they enjoy infringed on and destroyed by women. Many of those guys active on here if outed would likely be targeted by the outage mob and be fired from our jobs. In many countries men can not legally purchase sex to control their desires either. Meanwhile normies and feminists just drink from mugs saying male tears and complain about muh rape culture and objectifcation and other meaningless feminist buzz words.
I agree completely. Especially with being outed. Any time I write on here it's from behind around a VPN, 8 proxies, custom DNS servers and the Tor network. It's ridiculous that in a society built on free speech that a certain demographic can't express themselves. (The value of free speech to any crazy far leftists (I'm a liberal myself, not conservative) is for the poor to be able to escape poverty and shape the world to benefit themselves and to share their opinion on ANYTHING with others. Without that what else do they have? So keep fighting it because you're basically fucking yourselves in the long run. Oh wait, I forgot, most of your fathers are CEOs so you'll be fine.) Especially when one of the critiques of men is that they don't express themselves. "Only express yourself honestly if it's what we want to hear otherwise we'll literally ruin your life."
All the stuff you've written is dead on and used to be well known but everyone is behaving as if it's crazy. Usually governments start to shit themselves when young men start to become dissatisfied and start looking for solutions. It seems now that they just say "ew, those guys are just creeps and losers" thinking it'll socially shame others from becoming like that. Shame from females only works if guys have chances with the women doing the shaming. They've literally created a situation where these guys have nothing to lose. I'm trying to think of ways we can fix this without violating anyone's rights, mentioned it on another sub and just started getting sarcastic comments about sexism in return from so called liberals. They don't want to fix anything, they just want to dig a hole, throw their enemy into it and yell "NOW I'M TALLER THAN YOU! YOU'RE IN A HOLE!" No, shit for brains, nothing changed, you're still a bag of shit, just because you invented a reason to think someone else is a slightly smellier bag of shit doesn't suddenly make you desirable.
It'll all have to collapse at some point. There are too many of these young male groups getting together and just banning websites or blocking via the ISP isn't a solution. I think part of the root of this is the conflation between machismo and masculinity. There are basically zero healthy masculine role models in the mainstream. None. They can only be found online. It's because everyone seems to think that being masculine is the same as being macho, that it's a bad thing. (I think I remember some poll that found that really young boys feel ashamed to be masculine and male. What fucking kind of evil culture does that?) So it leaves half of the population in a weird, messed up position. Most guys are extremely unmanly which leaves women only seeing the hottest manly (inb4 "WHAT DOES "MANLY" MEAN? REEE") guys as attractive. I mean imagine a world where most women were pressured to act like guys and to only value masculine traits and hate femininity. You'd stop finding most of them attractive. That's the position a lot of women are in because of this anti-masculinity horse shit. Every single woman I know says they want a traditional life "eventually" but are scared to admit it in public "because it's sexist". Society is a complete mess of people behaving like animals while preaching to each other like (pseudo)intellectuals. The main problem with the left is that they like to pretend we're 100% rational yet they act in the exact opposite manner.
Out
Can't I discuss these issues? I did experience them, you guys are completely right. I want to try to help to end this shit. People lying to little boys about "romance" is causing a stupid amount of anger and suffering. Girls get taught the truth about male sexuality so boys should be taught the truth about female sexuality.
The homosexual issue is one of the most pointless, idiotic, asinine, non-nonsensical movement period. For some reason being gay is now seen as being a type of person and not what it really is....a fucking sexual fetish!
Your right, the world is shitting itself and no one is calling out the foul smell of it period. Just yesterday I read a report about how dolphins are commiting mass suicide by beaching themselves, like WTF!
Yet, we have to have a massive convo about gay men and women who want a new gender to be categorized and legislated by law or else. The collapse is near and I'm quite positive everyone sees the writing on the wall....
