Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
Women were instigating for the vote and being a part of American politics in the 19th century, notably in the temperance movement that became the prohibitionist movement and amendment.

I've written at length before on this forum about sexual politics and how total war and total state are an expression of over-reaching feminism, even when executed by men. Have you never experienced the following: girl gets pissed off at someone, gets boyfriend to beat them up?

That's the female strategy, to organize men to perform the violence necessary for their political or social ends. Now, a lot of the intellectuals behind communism were men (mostly Jewish) but again I believe that the ideology and tactics are on the feminine side of sexual politics, involving saying "nice" things like "we're going to give everyone free such and such." It's a nice thing to say, but it never works out, and it leaves out the part of who you're going to rob from to get it. Harsh truths, like "there are no free lunches" are more male political statements, flowery language and ideals are more female. At least that's how I see it, and it's because females evolved without having to work for the resources but were kept safe by men and had resources brought to them, and manage the home. So it makes sense that a feminine political outlook would not take into consideration how you obtain the resources, but just focuses on how to use them (whether they exist or not).
WOW. I am SO disappointed in this response by someone who so obviously considers himself a master of reality, facts, and argument in general.

What a disingenuous, side-stepping, obtuse response to my last post.

Speaking of obtuse, this bit really came out of left field:
Have you never experienced the following: girl gets pissed off at someone, gets boyfriend to beat them up?

Talk about a red herring.

Did some girl get her BF to beat you up, Kyle? Is that where all your issues with women come from?

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would use some statement like that to try to answer my last post.

At any rate, IIRC correctly, it was the Marxists and socialists who started all the crap about free lunch and we're going to give you free stuff. When considering the abundant damage done to the republican and capitalists ideals of the West, women's "instigations" in temperance and suffrage in the 19th century are so minor as to be inconsequential when simultaenously considering the damage done by the burgenoning Marxist and Socialist movements.

You have to know this and yet you still cling to your one-dimensional bigotry.

And who are and have always been the majority of Marxists and Socialist party members and thinkers?

Oh, that's right..MEN!! Not just MEN, but white European men.

Seriously. This is all you got?
 
Last edited:

AretnaP

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
180
Men are directly responsible for pretty much everything bad, but men are often encouraged or given incentive by women to do things.

Men and women both have ways of getting things done with unethical means.

Men tend to engage in direct violence, women tend to engage in proxy violence. Men will call you names, women will be passive-aggressive. Men will threaten you, women will try to manipulate you.

As far as who directly engages in bad behavior, yes it's usually men. Men enforce bad laws, men steal, men fight, men start wars. If you look at why men engage in these behaviors, the answer will of course sometimes involve women.

I can't understand the mindset of some dudes who want to take away women's right to vote, a big reason being because men would most likely end up, at least in large part, voting on women's behalf.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Men are directly responsible for pretty much everything bad, but men are often encouraged or given incentive by women to do things.

Men and women both have ways of getting things done with unethical means.

Men tend to engage in direct violence, women tend to engage in proxy violence. Men will call you names, women will be passive-aggressive. Men will threaten you, women will try to manipulate you.

As far as who directly engages in bad behavior, yes it's usually men. Men enforce bad laws, men steal, men fight, men start wars. If you look at why men engage in these behaviors, the answer will of course sometimes involve women.

I can't understand the mindset of some dudes who want to take away women's right to vote, a big reason being because men would most likely end up, at least in large part, voting on women's behalf.
Well of course! Women not happy, man doesn't get lucky. Man unhappy, woman still gets lucky, since he still needs to unwind.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Honestly @Kyle M you are highlighting a real concern AND both ways - female —> male male —> female. It makes me wonder why so much hatred and disgruntlement grew? And between countries and races etc.? It both saddens me and befuddles me.

It's called divide and conquer. Oldest tactic in the book for a reason, hun.
I'm with kyle on this one. Women are easily manipulated by the system due to their more emotional and self serving nature. Put women in charge of morals or culture and you get whatever you pay for. In this case it's babylon
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Lol causation from correlation on a Ray Peat forum. Truly great :clap
I second that. Truly amazing.
upload_2017-11-12_21-40-26.png
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
This is actually a great quote, and I strongly agree with it, although my reasons for thinking so are probably not yours.

My dad was a great man, IMO, and a hero in his own way, although he never got the chance to be show-offy with heroism. But he believed strongly in family and worked many hours for many years in a good-paying job he hated so that he could provide a good life for us. He wasn't touchy-feely but could be quite sensitive, and showed his love, integrity, character, and sense of duty in other ways, like always being around when you needed him to be. When I really needed him, he was always there.

But he could also be a first class prick, and there were many days that if my mother or I had an idea that was even a whisker's breadth out of line with his, things could come within a hair's breadth of violence. Sometimes it did come to violence, although mostly verbal abuse, not so much physical. Not only that, but when I was young, he really seemed to feel that he was *entitled* to act this way, and that it was okay to stifle those he loved in this manner. I also noted that he didn't act this way with the other men in the family, only the women.

Because of this, I think I decided early on I was never going to give a man the power over me that my father had over my mother. I started stepping to him when I was a teenager, and we came to blows a few times. But my mother never did step, not really. All my romantic relationships have been ultimatelyy unsuccessful, I think in large measure because of the constant power struggle and the dominance of my father that I witnessed in early life. I was always wary and never did a good job of compromising in any relationship, because I thought that to compromise was to open the door to bullying dominance, and a complete subjugation of whatever ideas I had.

Also because of this experience with my father, as a young women I bought into the idea of feminism, although I was never a screeching, sign-waving harpy about it. But I did devalue men as people, largely in reaction to the way I had perceived myself to be devalued as a female early on.

I think experiences like mine are the primary driver of feminism and the reason, as you noted, for the rise in single motherhood even in cultures that don't promote it with welfare. With women finally able to eke out a living for themselves, why bother putting up with being subjugated and dominated?

I realized the sloppy, lazy errors in my thinking years and years ago, though, and began to try to rectify it. I rectified it by trying to see people not in the simplistic terms that the '60's and '70's-era "Battle of the Sexes" would have us see one another (which is still being promoted around here in threads like these!), but in more complex terms on an individual level. This was how I was able to come to terms with my father's behavior and my mother's seeming passivity, and see the complex love that was underpinning the whole relationship. This was how I realized I really do like men, and that don't have to devalue men in general, that I can dislike certain things in some men but that I don't have to generalize every unpleasant experience I have with an individual man to *all* men. Unfortunately, generalizing is the easiest and most passive way to think,which is why so many of us fall prey to it, and why it causes so many problems.
I'm glad you got that figured out. It takes a lot of reflection after a lot of struggling to get to that understanding. Many are stuck in a stage of rationalizing their choices.

The change in America coincided with welfare, and was greatest in the highest welfare populations (blacks). The correlation is really strong.

Also, women's happiness (according to their own reporting) has been steadily declining as they have been turning down or not being able to achieve and maintain traditional gender role marriages.

It may be that welfare encouraged more single moms, but I posit that ignoring their situation and not giving them a hand through welfare could make it worse for society. The less time a mom could have to nurture a budding offspring, the less she has of molding the child to be of the character society needs to build itself on. We are more what our parents impart to us by osmosis, than what the school or church or club or neighborhood does to make us, if we get to have a parent/parents to spend time with growing up.

With or without welfare, the rise of single moms would still happen. When households form little sway in prepping children for life, propaganda and the prevailing narrative of Hollywood and media becomes the guidance system, and value systems are upturned.

Women were instigating for the vote and being a part of American politics in the 19th century, notably in the temperance movement that became the prohibitionist movement and amendment.

I've written at length before on this forum about sexual politics and how total war and total state are an expression of over-reaching feminism, even when executed by men. Have you never experienced the following: girl gets pissed off at someone, gets boyfriend to beat them up?

That's the female strategy, to organize men to perform the violence necessary for their political or social ends. Now, a lot of the intellectuals behind communism were men (mostly Jewish) but again I believe that the ideology and tactics are on the feminine side of sexual politics, involving saying "nice" things like "we're going to give everyone free such and such." It's a nice thing to say, but it never works out, and it leaves out the part of who you're going to rob from to get it. Harsh truths, like "there are no free lunches" are more male political statements, flowery language and ideals are more female. At least that's how I see it, and it's because females evolved without having to work for the resources but were kept safe by men and had resources brought to them, and manage the home. So it makes sense that a feminine political outlook would not take into consideration how you obtain the resources, but just focuses on how to use them (whether they exist or not).
The dynamics of a traditional male-female society lends itself to a balancing effect, in a yin-yang sort of way. I wouldn't say though that women are going to be more wasteful in parting with money, even if they didn't directly earn them. They're the ones, for example, who would cut out coupons. Men don't care for such details. But certainly, women are the directors in a family, and men the actors. Still, this is an oversimplification. Whether a family is male-dominated or female-dominated (no such thing as balanced really), what matters most is that it should cultivate harmony. This isn't the absence of disagreements, but allowing viewpoints to be heard, and grievances to be addressed. This lets off steam, and pressure doesn't build up to a crisis level, as deep roots of discord are hard to break free from.

If there is too much of one gender, or too much of one personality type that is dominant, there won't be balance. If we agree that the feminine traits are dominant in society now, would replacing it with a masculine dominance help? Perhaps in better days, there was balance.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
It may be that welfare encouraged more single moms, but I posit that ignoring their situation and not giving them a hand through welfare could make it worse for society.

You are using fuzzy, white-washed language when describing welfare. Welfare is not "us giving them a hand." Charity is giving a hand. Welfare is a centralized, violently enforced involuntary wealth transfer scheme that involves thousands of bureaucratic jobs (that then lobby for a continuance of the program, even in the face of poor results) and has had awful outcomes. Children of single mothers have worse life outcomes than child from intact families, and welfare is causally linked in a number of studies to incentivizing single motherhood. I don't have the citations on hand, but it has been tried in places like Muncie Indiana where the rules of welfare were switched around, whether you get welfare for being single or married. Wouldn't you know it, when the rules say you get welfare for being a single mother, there's more single mothers, when they say you have to be a couple, there's more couples. Feel free to look up that literature yourself.

With or without welfare, the rise of single moms would still happen. When households form little sway in prepping children for life, propaganda and the prevailing narrative of Hollywood and media becomes the guidance system, and value systems are upturned.

You simply cannot make this counter-factual assertion citing only social changes that happened in our timeline where welfare was instituted. That would be like saying "the Muslims would be attacking us even if the West didn't colonize and occupy Muslim lands, just look at what they are doing now." You cannot use the current social degeneracy in Hollywood etc., which occurred in a society that already accepted involuntary coercive wealth transfers, to justify that the same phenomenon of single motherhood would occur because of that social degeneracy.

You are using a steady-state analysis to describe alternate historical paths. The correlation is there, and every sociological study performed gives evidence to a causal link. Lastly, the groups with the most welfare, blacks and Hispanics, also happen to have the highest rates of single motherhood. AND they DID NOT have as high of a rate, and as much disparity with whites, BEFORE welfare was instituted.

What else do you need?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
WOW. I am SO disappointed in this response by someone who so obviously considers himself a master of reality, facts, and argument in general.

What a disingenuous, side-stepping, obtuse response to my last post.

Speaking of obtuse, this bit really came out of left field:


Talk about a red herring.

Did some girl get her BF to beat you up, Kyle? Is that where all your issues with women come from?

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would use some statement like that to try to answer my last post.

At any rate, IIRC correctly, it was the Marxists and socialists who started all the crap about free lunch and we're going to give you free stuff. When considering the abundant damage done to the republican and capitalists ideals of the West, women's "instigations" in temperance and suffrage in the 19th century are so minor as to be inconsequential when simultaenously considering the damage done by the burgenoning Marxist and Socialist movements.

You have to know this and yet you still cling to your one-dimensional bigotry.

And who are and have always been the majority of Marxists and Socialist party members and thinkers?

Oh, that's right..MEN!! Not just MEN, but white European men.

Seriously. This is all you got?

All social movements of all time have been done by men, because men are the agents of change in human society. Whether those men are influenced by feminine or masculine values, and whether women are behind some of the decision making, is another story.

Men are leaders in societies that protect property rights and the rule of law, women generally are not or only play supplementary roles. Men are also leaders in societies that do not protect property rights and the rule of law, women play a much more significant part in those societies. It's as clear as day, Marxists and other collectivists don't just decry capitalism, they decry PATRIARCHAL capitalism. They understand that it's a male dominated ideology, individual rights, and that collectivism is a female dominated ideology.

An analogy would be Jews and the World Order. People point out that most of the communist theoreticians and leaders were Jewish, as well as most leaders of world banks. However, Jews are also over-represented in free-market economics (Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, David Gordon, etc.) The fact is, Jews are over-represented in ALL intellectual movements, because they as an ethnicity tend to go into intellectual fields. This is analogous to men and social leadership, of course the leading communists were men, the leading everything is and always will be men. Women simply do not or cannot do the intellectual work needed to craft an ideology or lead a revolution. They do play secondary parts, however, and women play much more significant roles in collectivist ideologies than individualist ones.

If this were not true, why would Marxists everywhere be pro-matriarchy and women and anti-patriarchy and men? It couldn't be more clear what THEY believe their system is about (female, not male, domination in thought and deed) so why is it so confusing to you?

P.S. - as another, similar, point, the stand out nature of figures like Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher are the exceptions that prove the rule. If women were just as likely as men to be for free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, these figures wouldn't loom so large and be so polarizing in history. You can count on your fingers the numbers of prominent pro-free market women that have existed in politics and theory throughout the centuries, whereas you couldn't name all of the men involved in defending markets if you had all day.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Charity is giving a hand.
Welfare is also giving a hand. Just because the state does it, doesn't mean it doesn't give a hand. Just because welfare is a bureaucracy doesn't mean it serves no purpose.

Wouldn't you know it, when the rules say you get welfare for being a single mother, there's more single mothers, when they say you have to be a couple, there's more couples. Feel free to look up that literature yourself.
No need. I didn't disagree in the first place. It's not even something for discussion.

What else do you need?
Since you are the policy czar, and your thought on abolishing welfare for single moms are followed, tell me if you can foresee any unintended consequences of your tough love approach?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Welfare is also giving a hand. Just because the state does it, doesn't mean it doesn't give a hand. Just because welfare is a bureaucracy doesn't mean it serves no purpose.

No need. I didn't disagree in the first place. It's not even something for discussion.

Since you are the policy czar, and your thought on abolishing welfare for single moms are followed, tell me if you can foresee any unintended consequences of your tough love approach?

Ok you aren't understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying that welfare is not a helping hand because it's coerced. There is also literature on this: as the state increases welfare, private charity decreases. Private charity is more effective, and it's moral because it's voluntary.

I think we need to establish whether you think there is any moral problem forcing a group of people at gun point to give another group of people money. If you don't think that is a moral problem, then I really don't have anything to discuss with you on policy or anything else having to do with politics, as I am opposed to coercive force and violence, even if you claim that the violence is for a good purpose.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Ok you aren't understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying that welfare is not a helping hand because it's coerced. There is also literature on this: as the state increases welfare, private charity decreases. Private charity is more effective, and it's moral because it's voluntary.

I think we need to establish whether you think there is any moral problem forcing a group of people at gun point to give another group of people money. If you don't think that is a moral problem, then I really don't have anything to discuss with you on policy or anything else having to do with politics, as I am opposed to coercive force and violence, even if you claim that the violence is for a good purpose.
The very essence of charity itself makes it a very unreliable predictor of funding. Two things are needed to make charity work: ability and willingness, to give. Tell me how private charity works for you. Even Machiavelli knows love does not motivate as much as fear. There is law, and there is disorder as well. Is following the law holding a gun to your head?
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
"There is the lover and there is the provider, and women find it difficult to see you as both."

Begs the question, explaining little. Put a little crudely, as stated by an anonymous writer, "Beta bux, alpha fux." Women are attracted to a**holes - alpha men - because bad boys are much more of a thrill and exciting. not boring. But unreliable, often are bad providers and unfaithful. Life is certainly exciting with such guys, but they are unsuitable as husbands and fathers, and home life with them is not exactly tranquil. Beta men - who are in the majority - make good providers and fathers, are reliable, and much less likely to cheat. The world would fall apart without them. Life and home are stable with them. Main negative: they are boring and unexciting and sexually flat, as compared to alpha jerks.

The smarter or psychologically mature women are well aware of this distinction between men and realistic enough to realize they have to make their choices based on what is most important to them: stable, tranquil home and marriage, children with a stable, dependable but dull and sexually boring man, or thrills and regular sexual highs (plus the lows) and constant romance/intrigue/drama - which often will not last too long in many cases- with a charming but unreliable jerkman?

Feminism urges young women FIRST to go after a career and chase jerkmen - fun, fun, fun - then settle down later. Trouble is, by the time they settle down and look to get married, they find the best quality men have been scooped up by their less liberated sisters, and these careerist sluts have gotten old enough in the looks department to be unable to compete with other women for decent men to marry. Especially later on (in their 30s), many such women cannot get the alphas (who want younger flesh) to marry them and they are left with 2nd-rate, desperate betas (who often have a lot of problems - addictions to drugs, alcohol, porn, job instability, psychological problems etc., etc.) to choose from. Plus any quality men still available are not going to be interested in marrying a woman who has dedicated the prime years of her life to sluttery. Also, due to the merciless clock, by that time, even if they can get married at all, they may be too old to give birth to children.

From what I have observed, such women were not expecting such outcomes before choosing to immerse themselves early-on in careers and so-called sexual freedom resulting later in a very single and later still, very lonely life. It used to be their mothers - and especially grandmothers - would convey cautions and wise advice to their daughters to help them avoid such outcomes. Alas, it seems they either are not advising them anymore or if they are trying to advise them, they are unable to penetrate the conditioning their daughters have accumulated in schools and other societal conditioning agents.
Where would you put President Trump in that dichotomy?
All social movements of all time have been done by men, because men are the agents of change in human society. Whether those men are influenced by feminine or masculine values, and whether women are behind some of the decision making, is another story.

Men are leaders in societies that protect property rights and the rule of law, women generally are not or only play supplementary roles. Men are also leaders in societies that do not protect property rights and the rule of law, women play a much more significant part in those societies. It's as clear as day, Marxists and other collectivists don't just decry capitalism, they decry PATRIARCHAL capitalism. They understand that it's a male dominated ideology, individual rights, and that collectivism is a female dominated ideology.

An analogy would be Jews and the World Order. People point out that most of the communist theoreticians and leaders were Jewish, as well as most leaders of world banks. However, Jews are also over-represented in free-market economics (Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, David Gordon, etc.) The fact is, Jews are over-represented in ALL intellectual movements, because they as an ethnicity tend to go into intellectual fields. This is analogous to men and social leadership, of course the leading communists were men, the leading everything is and always will be men. Women simply do not or cannot do the intellectual work needed to craft an ideology or lead a revolution. They do play secondary parts, however, and women play much more significant roles in collectivist ideologies than individualist ones.

If this were not true, why would Marxists everywhere be pro-matriarchy and women and anti-patriarchy and men? It couldn't be more clear what THEY believe their system is about (female, not male, domination in thought and deed) so why is it so confusing to you?

P.S. - as another, similar, point, the stand out nature of figures like Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher are the exceptions that prove the rule. If women were just as likely as men to be for free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, these figures wouldn't loom so large and be so polarizing in history. You can count on your fingers the numbers of prominent pro-free market women that have existed in politics and theory throughout the centuries, whereas you couldn't name all of the men involved in defending markets if you had all day.
Ludwig von Mises criticized Friedman and his ilk for their socialist tendencies.

Hey Kyle, have you read Democracy: The God That Failed and if so what do you think of it?
 
Last edited:

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Alpha, a super-alpha - vcry rare. JFK was a super-alpha, and Bill Clinton, probably.

Where would you put President Trump in that dichotomy?
Ludwig von Mises criticized Friedman and his ilk for their socialist tendencies.

Hey Kyle, have you read Democracy: The God That Failed and if so what do you think of it?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
The very essence of charity itself makes it a very unreliable predictor of funding. Two things are needed to make charity work: ability and willingness, to give. Tell me how private charity works for you. Even Machiavelli knows love does not motivate as much as fear. There is law, and there is disorder as well. Is following the law holding a gun to your head?
Charity was very reliable before the state built up welfare. Even today private charities are much more effective in actually helping people than welfare because of the incentives. Welfare departments are bureaucrats jobs, their incentive is to keep their job ie maintain or increase the number of people on their welfare roles. If they “solved the problem” of poverty, their livelihoods would be hurt. Charities, if there is no one who needs help in an area, simply ramp down donations and activity. They want to solve the problem as their primary incentive.

Are you familiar with the distinction between law and legislation? Of course legislation like the income tax, unconstitutional at that, is a gun to your head. And the legislation that allocated some of that tax revenue to welfare payments are an addendum that, combined with involuntary taxation, compromises a coherent system of gun to head wealth transfer.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Ludwig von Mises criticized Friedman and his ilk for their socialist tendencies.

Hey Kyle, have you read Democracy: The God That Failed and if so what do you think of it?
Of course the Mises lineage is the most pure, but in the grand scale Friedman was very pro market.

I️ haven’t read it all but what I’ve read was great and the arguments from it I’ve seen in lecture also convinced me. Liechtenstein seems to be a living example, as compared to a Germany or a France.
 
OP
kayumochi

kayumochi

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
376
I think all of the men in this thread are well aware that women behave this way. It just is what it is. It is the women that I have spoken to who vehemently deny this, which I find endlessly amusing. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, it's just something that men need to be told early and often. There is the lover and there is the provider, and women find it difficult to see you as both.

You may be on to something ... Can't recall any women denying this yet it isn't something I have spoken with many women about but it is something I have observed more times than I can count.
 

EIRE24

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
1,792
Because of the UK diet and frequently visiting the pub, women in the UK have a different body type then the US. In Ireland it was even more so probably due to the Guinness. I would travel a lot to the UK and Ireland.
I live in Ireland and women dont drink Guinness, I have NEVER seen a women with a pint of Guinness in front of her.
 

Dhair

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
880
You may be on to something ... Can't recall any women denying this yet it isn't something I have spoken with many women about but it is something I have observed more times than I can count.
They deny it in a more personal context. It's really a childish denial of female nature. But often they try to pigeonhole men as being someone who would be a "good husband." "Don't worry, when you get older all the girls will want you!" That kind of thing. So everyone should wait until these women magically see the light? What do these young men do until then? Just settle for being incels? Give me a break. I cannot tell you how many of these conversations that I had with girls and much older women when I was a teenager. It's really incredible that they cannot conceive of how male-female relationships develop, simply because they aren't expected to put in the initial effort, and women aren't expected to bear the consequences of a social interaction gone seriously wrong.
As I've become more mature, none of these things make me angry. Like I said- it is what it is. You can't hate women for it. The hatred leads to an endless cycle of learned helplessness, and this is obviously unhealthy. A lot of these problems would be fixed if we could change the public conversation. People did not think this way 50 years ago, and I think they were happier and healthier overall. There were no Elliot Rodgers. The issue is that young men are lied to in this way. Through the media, school, their mothers and emasculated fathers. Stop telling men that they aren't allowed to be masculine and whatever issues anyone has with women will be resolved.
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
They deny it in a more personal context. It's really a childish denial of female nature. But often they try to pigeonhole men as being someone who would be a "good husband." "Don't worry, when you get older all the girls will want you!" That kind of thing. So everyone should wait until these women magically see the light? What do these young men do until then? Just settle for being incels? Give me a break. I cannot tell you how many of these conversations that I had with girls and much older women when I was a teenager. It's really incredible that they cannot conceive of how male-female relationships develop, simply because they aren't expected to put in the initial effort, and women aren't expected to bear the consequences of a social interaction gone seriously wrong.
As I've become more mature, none of these things make me angry. Like I said- it is what it is. You can't hate women for it. The hatred leads to an endless cycle of learned helplessness, and this is obviously unhealthy. A lot of these problems would be fixed if we could change the public conversation. The issue is that young men are lied to in this way. Through the media, school, their mothers and emasculated fathers. Stop telling men that they aren't allowed to be masculine and whatever issues anyone has with women will be resolved.
How about abolishing compulsory state schooling tang artificially puts together groups of same aged adolescents and young adults, wasting much of their youth and developing social traumas needlessly?
 

Dhair

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
880
How about abolishing compulsory state schooling tang artificially puts together groups of same aged adolescents and young adults, wasting much of their youth and developing social traumas needlessly?
It would certainly help. I don't know how you could shift the culture back into a state of normalcy. Things have never been perfect, but the public school system is dominated by women who were brainwashed by propaganda, so that would be a good place to start. Children never get a chance to interact and learn organically. The child-like metabolic state that Peat describes can never be achieved culturally unless people stop brutally vying for power. And women ARE equally responsible for this.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom