Now, I know what that sounds like. But this position is interesting.

This anon (Picrel) is a mysandrist who posted a theory, defining patriarchy as an "incel affirmative action program":

Women are the natural eugenicists of humanity. In nature, males compete for females. Females decide which males reproduce and which don't. Patriarchy, then, arose so that men unworthy of reproduction would have an artificial (unnatural) way to have women: By making men use their strenght to steal and keep all the resources, forcing and coercing women to be with them; an artificial system where men who don't deserve children and wives receive children and wives for their resources rather than for their nature and genetics.

Based on this, all the world's problems are defined: an overpopulation of billions of men whose genetic line should have been extinct (pedophiles, disabled people, murderers), dysfunctional political systems (Anon on picrel suggests that systems like Marxism also arise as an attempt to make women an accessible resource for beta men).

Thus, the incel phenomenon and the decline of modern man can be explained because we live in a time of transition where men have lost their artificial reproduction system (Patriarchy), so only men who truly deserve to reproduce will pass the filter, since women are becoming more independent and naturally demanding of their potential partners.

Another picrel

>>17823730 (OP) It's all beliefs. Some serves you, some must be changed.

>>17823730 (OP)
Eh, sounds like that person just heard about Eugenics and took the most obvious route to make it about her. The position is pretty faulty.
Women as natural Eugenecists is a laughable premise based on rose-tinted assumptions about women and also nature.

Females select for retarded criminals.

>>17823730 (OP)
Misandrists are laughable, they refuse to acknowledge the inherent differences in them from man by assuming that their epistemology is even remotely similar to that of a man. Their virtues and value system are entirely alien to the the school of thought which they attempt to co-opt in service of creating their new world -- if they even aim so high. They assume an intentional darkness to the masculine form which affects their lives in unpleasant ways, but that is simply the ontology of masculinity and intention has very little to do with it. This leads them to spite, usually because they themselves fall outside the range of acceptability in some respect or another, and this spiteful pontification robs them of power. Women and men are each others counterparts, regardless of your spiritual and philosophical views both need each other to continue existing. If misandrists recognized this for even the briefest of moments they would no longer feel spite but a will to engender in that -- which they are solely able to create -- with the views that respect their individuality. Incels are a similar case but from the other end.

>>17824849
your post is no less idiotic than the OP's garbage
Complementarianism is nothing more than egalitarianism applied from a seemingly impartial perspective.

>>17824852
Complementarianism? Tell me anon, how exactly would mankind continue to exist as a species should one gender vanish from the earth? It is not complementarian, it is reality.

Women select for terrible traits though. Women overwhelmingly prefer dumber men with poorer impulse control and reasoning abilities. They don't even select for good physical traits.

>>17824853
It's amazing how you try to show yourself as an intellectual figure just by using redundant and formal words in a text that could be summarized in less than a paragraph. That doesn't make you a genius.
>Tell me anon, how exactly would mankind continue to exist as a species should one gender vanish from the earth
You know what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the obvious lack of pathogenesis in humans, I'm talking about the jargon idea that "the sexes actually complement each other."

>>17824852
Exactly. If you research the etymological and historical roots of the term, you will see that basically to combat egalitarianism, the council coined the term “complementarianism”. And in practice, it works the same way, where men and women must be in some way, limited at any hierarchical level.

>>17824859
Alright then my nigga, some women are upset that men are men, some men are upset that women are women, neither feels very content with this arrangement but neither is at fault. If they realized that the best way to resolve this was simply by creating the reality which they desire, they wouldn't be miserable. Also women and men are different my nigga, so any attempt to rationalize the others world view is doomed to failure my nigga. Is that better?

>>17824864
Yeah I know

>>17824859
Moreover the fact that we can not reproduce asexually is much more of lynch pin to the argument than maybe you realize. The sexes complement each other by nature, but the fact we rely on each other entirely for our continued existence isn't just some non-factor. Humans, much like every other living organism, have developed interdependencies on the basis of dimorphism.

>>17823730 (OP)
>Women are the natural eugenicists of humanity. In nature, males compete for females. Females decide which males reproduce and which don't.
Untrue. War determined the men who were left. Then those men had the chance to take it upon themselves to impregnate women. The only recourse left for women was to terminate their own pregnancy at great risk. But often they didn't because they're rabid-brained and are willing to birth a rapechild.

>Based on this, all the world's problems are defined: an overpopulation of billions of men whose genetic line should have been extinct
This, logically, would also include billions of women who are descended from these supposed unworthy men.

Financial systems are stamping out society’s capacity for family formation and you think pussy has some sort of value in any of it.

you need the laborforce of all these sub standard men to uphold civlization, and large groups of disgruntled young men without a stake in the system is liable to think that maybe just burning everything down is the more attractive option.

>>17823730 (OP)
truthnvke

>>17825139
I thought that was a result of inbreeding

>>17823730 (OP)
women arent good eugenicists otherwise we would see an advantage to matriarchy over patriarchy.
nature selects men through war, hunt, and struggle, then women are selected by men to carry on the genes of those who survived nature.

If women were selected to pick men, women would actually be less picky because theyd have pruned everyone they didnt like over the generations.
instead we see women basically dont like men at all sexually, they like a small subset of men.
While men who did select women and chose which woman got to have the most kids, men love women, totally and unconditionally and men cherish women to an extreme degree across the board.

>>17825230
Inbreeding is the most common in patriarchal societies like pakistan, india, middle east

>>17823730 (OP)
And who decides which women are worthy of reproduction?

>>17824853
>>17824859
>Complementarianism
central to evangelical belief in response to the feminist movement of the 1970s when many Christians

>>17825558
>Oh you have a vaguely similar viewpoint to this one extremely specific niche group?
>Well did you know they are cringe?

I said men and women are fundamentally different but they differ in ways that over the course of many hundreds of thousands of years, have formed interdependencies on the basis of this sexual dimorphism.

>>17825977
The problem isn't that men and women are different, it's that your notion of complementarity is a gateway to introduce unwarranted gender roles. In reality, yes, men and women are different. However, in terms of intelligence, both sexes seem more or less broadly capable of handling the same tasks, and aren't necessarily predisposed to certain roles (like domestic labor or physical labor)

>>17826016
It's not that women (or men) differ in terms of cognitive abilities, but elements of their socialization especially create the conditions for one gender to be predisposed to a certain act while another is not. This goes from the most obvious to ones buried under loose connections we barely understand today, take the issue of women in the work force. During and after WWII women were increasingly drafted into the industrial and service economy, and through fairly successful propaganda tailored to a woman's mind of that time this expanded. Did it bring about some revolution for women? No instead it robbed the worker of half their wages and doubled the tax burden on a house holds revenue. Women were essentially psy-op'd into supporting something which degraded their overall quality of life because it came with being viewed as equal to men. Same with birth control, a medicine that has caused various reproductive system cancers rates to skyrocket and caused women to enter puberty at a much younger age, was similarly introduced as a way to bring parity to the sexes. This worked on women and men, but women whole heartedly supported these and others measures because they wanted to be equal to men in all respects as opposed equal to them by complement.

makes the assumption that women are actually selecting men based on what makes them fit for advancing modern society. find this unlikely.

>>17823730 (OP)
Essentially this >>17826205. Women's preferences select for what makes a good caveman (ie a big violent psychopath), not a functioning member of a complex society. Civilization is too new for their preferences to have caught up.

>>17826205
It also implicitly negates the idea that women themselves could be dysgenic. Which goes against basically all of Eugenics.

>Women are the natural eugenicists of humanity.
what the fuck are you talking about retard, women are just choosing the hottest men, not judging men based on their health, athletic performance, intelligence et cetera..

the people having the most children nowadays are either the poorest in the ghetto or those who are still religious, ironically atheist reproduction is highly dysgenic while the religious are the only group preserving high IQ DNA, if they happen to be a high IQ ethnicity

>>17823730 (OP)
tl;dr
the idea that famels select the best is ludicrous at best

women pick no-good bums and violent manics all the time

>>17825139
not much different from skull elongation

The Romans wrote in the early days that the Huns were monstrous, and inhuman. Later archeological records revealed that the huns would enlongate certain warrior skulls while they were young and pliable

>>17825237
I actually am not convinced that patriarchy has ever existed.
Look throughout history and women always win, genetically.
So maybe the social structure evolved to what it is, to compensate for the disadvantage against maleness (when we are clearly the stronger)
Thoughts, niggers?

>>17825977
>interdependencies
They didn't
It's not like it's a mutual symbiotic relationship, that's what you don't understand. And to mention again that human sex doesn't necessarily mean that they are dependent on each other.

>>17826016
>However, in terms of intelligence, both sexes seem more or less broadly capable
Wrong

>>17826066
>they wanted to be equal to men in all respects as opposed equal to them by complement
Both aspects are wrong

>>17823730 (OP)
Counterpoint: A modest proposal proposal for Total Woman Annihilation.

>>17823730 (OP)
>so only men who truly deserve to reproduce will pass the filter, since women are becoming more independent and naturally demanding of their potential partners.
Like pedophiles, criminals, drug dealers, basketball playing hoodlums.

>>17826655
Your right, symbiotic would imply they are different species, we have a symbiotic relationship with dogs for example. Not to get semantical here but really when you are of the same species there is no purpose in mentioning symbiosis, everything one half the species does is either suicidal or to each's benefit. Short of the IVF bone marrow cloning that got pop-science buzz a few years back, human sex does necessarily mean we are dependent on each other. Maybe this is too big picture, however, yes men and women rely on each other sexually but they also rely on each other in other ways -- or as you argue they do not.

>>17826662
Equal by complement is just a digestible phrase, neither gender will truly be equal with one another. There are things men can do that women simply cannot, likewise there are things women can do that men simply cannot, moreover the differences between us generally pre-dispose one side or another to different paths. Embracing these differences and acknowledging their existence is why patriarchal and paternal systems generally foster long term stability and even dramatic success should they have the proper conditions. Modernity has trapped society in an enlightenment idea, which had its merits at the time, but nonetheless was never meant to be axiomatic.

chimpanzees have a female dominant social structure, just look at the wonders their species has created

>>17823730 (OP)
>Patriarchy doesn't work
Somebody should tell that to literally all of human civilisation.

>>17826662
Correct

>>17824424
Chuds won. Civilization is a chuddy affair.

>>17823730 (OP)
Except being able to produce resources actually makes you more evolutionarily fit than someone who is just a violent chimp?

>>17824857
How are those traits terrible if they're the ones being selected for? Maybe you need to spend more time thinking.

Women aren't having kids despite having the best access to chads they ever had since polygamy fell out of fashion. If they have a kid it's im their mid 30's with some beta incel pushover they then divorce rape using that kid as a tool yo get more money out of him

>>17827209
>Patriarchy is everywhere!
>Patriarchy is literally everything!
>PATRIARCHY STEALS MY SOCKS!!!!!!!!!!
>Also patriarchy doesn't work
Is there actually anything inside these peoples skulls?

>>17829360
>Incels
>Bring able to produce
Also not how genetics work.

>>17827171
That's Bonobos, moron.

>>17830477
*Being able to work

ok now go back to the kitchen
women are inherently stupid, they cant choose their men properly let alone run a society. they tend to make everything about them and their feefees and have the world be shaped into their irrealistic fantasies, as well as leaning towards emotion over reason. would this theory be true, the few matriarchal societies that have spawned accross history would have dominated because of superior men, which clearly is not the case.
and no, i have not been rejected in my life, rather the other way around. its just scientifically proven this is how female psychology works.

>>17830405
Patriarchy is a social construct

It's not the natural order

There you go chud

>>17830481
Chimps also don't have much to their name, to be fair.
Though I guess basic tool use, organizing hit squads on Gorilla Children and having something that may be rituals is a feat, of sorts.

>>17826066
>but elements of their socialization especially create the conditions for one gender to be predisposed to a certain act while another is not.
The underlying reason as to why that is lies in biological differences.

>This worked on women and men, but women whole heartedly supported these and others measures because they wanted to be equal to men in all respects as opposed equal to them by complement.
Because "complementing" men meant being considered a grown child incapable of rational thought with very little possibilities for you. All of which were based on discutable interpretation of the qualities of both sexes.

>>17830514
>'Social Construct', neologism, literal meaning "I know I'm wrong but I'm too much of a coward and too driven by irrational hate to admit that, so I'm going to use a word that has been rendered meaningless by overuse and pretend that means something!"
Is there anything inside your skull?

>>17825020

Over 8 billion...

>>17825317

Collaborationists.

When men died in droves (wars, crusades...), widows & orphans would be rife in the lands. So, the aristocracy fiddled with this, having women to line up and be used however they pleased.

Those that refused were tortured, killed, or forced to a convent to die silently. Their children used as slaves (new serfs), or future levies, or some other perversions.

The women that made it out of this ordeal – that didn't get tortured, killed, forced in convents – were either willing to accept the ultimatum & become a plaything or they were collaborationists with the aristocrats to filter out disloyal women.


The good women, good maidens so to speak, died a long time ago.

>>17826238

OK.

Are women with big breasts dysgenic or not?
Do you consider women as biologically altered/underdeveloped men?

>>17826246
>the people having the most children nowadays are either the poorest in the ghetto

COVID proved that is a lie.


>or those who are still religious, ironically atheist reproduction is highly dysgenic while the religious are the only group preserving high IQ DNA, if they happen to be a high IQ ethnicity

Fear of an invented self-made abstraction, given credit due to presumably old writings with unknown author(s), isn't a sign of high IQ, Anon.
Neither is mutilating your boys, while we're at it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxkEMTSchAM

>>17829402

Ruthless optimization.