Thread 41591576

Butches look like this and unironically think that they can protect their gfs from predatory moids

>>41591576 (OP)
Just by going to the gym or taking a few fighting classes, looks don't equal strength.

Her gf just hasn't met the right cock yet

>>41591576 (OP)
>butches
>posts vaguely tomboyish hoe who clearly wastes three hours a day on her skincare routine

>>41591608
Or buying a gun

>>41591626
Pretty sure that's just what young women's skin looks like

>>41591626
Just like real life

>>41591631
True! After the advent of guns, strength became something more insignificant. No matter how muscular and strong someone is, a shot to the head or neck can kill.

OP doesn't know about the advent of gunpowder...

>>41591613
She also hasn't met the right cock yet, one thorough dicking is enough for her to drop the act and accept her role as a womb. Only completely delusional ones will resort to transitioning but even then

>>41591645
happy lesbians almost make me smile

>>41591683
>lesbians still depends on other men to make weapons for them
lmao. Also stronger people are more resilient when it comes to wounds so no that's just false. Sure there are weak points on everyone, but a woman will miss because she's slower and lacks the hunter instinct that would let her lock on to the target during intense moments such as these. This is because human females mainly did the child care stuff and at most some gathering. Men have always been the ones going for the kill and this is why their biology is different from us. Not to mention that men are way more likely to be armed. Women mostly carry pepper sprays at most

>>41591769
Brain worms, regardless of who makes the weapon, are for general use, not just for men. Women can be as agile, aggressive, and violent as men in terms of reflexes and adaptability, and no matter how muscular someone is, I reiterate, a shot to the head will kill; and who said women will miss their shots? If someone wants to kill, that woman will.

And if in the global north women are incapable of doing the minimum, in the South it wasn't like that. In the pre-colonial period, there were even women who had the same occupations as men and were married to women.

I will leave an excerpt below:
"Some Indian women also determine among them to be chaste, who do not know any man of any quality, nor will they consent to it even if they are killed for it. These abandon all the exercise of women and imitate men and follow their occupations, as if they were not female." They have their hair cut in the same way as the men, and they go to war with their bows and arrows, and to hunt, always persevering in the company of men, and each one has a woman who serves her, with whom she says she is married, and thus they communicate and converse as husband and wife (GANDAVO, 1858 [1576]: 47-48)

>>41591880
>regardless of who makes the weapon, are for general use, not just for men
It's not brainworms, butch lesbians like to larp as men lite edition but can never produce the same things they do so they are not as independent as they claim from the patriarchy's protective masculine embrace. A predatory moid will not only be more likely to have such a tool but he'll know it inside and out intimately while a female can just press button and get shit jammed. Have you never seen those videos of armed female fucking things up? That's with them being in a position of power surrounded by other men ready to take over from her when she inevitably fails, but what about when a +6ft beast comes lounging at them to pound the lesbian couple in the pussy?
>These abandon all the exercise of women and imitate men and follow their occupations, as if they were not female
But they are female and that makes them automatically perform worse than a man could, fashion choices and using weapons only a man could design and master (such as bows and arrows which actually require strength) is beyond embarrassing. The fact is men are made for hunting big game, we are made for motherhood and child rearing. Not only do we have a baby factory in our tummies we even have baby feeding organs right on our chests. Every single thing about womanhood is reduced to that

>>41591576 (OP)
If they look like that they don't have to worry about their gf because I will be coming after them

>>41592056
Throughout history, the image of women as fragile figures confined to the home has been used to justify inequalities and limit their participation in society, which is a great lie, utter madness; patriarchy is recent, and it probably wasn't like this throughout human evolution. Archaeological discoveries and historical records show that this view is false. Women have always held leadership, combat, and hunting roles, contradicting the idea that they are naturally incapable or inferior to men.

Recent research has revealed the presence of women in roles traditionally associated with strength and war. In 2020, a study published in the journal Science Advances analyzed a tomb found in the Peruvian Andes dating back more than nine thousand years and discovered that the person buried with hunting tools was a woman. This discovery challenged the narrative that only men hunted large animals in prehistoric societies. Similar cases have been identified in other regions, indicating that female hunters were more common than previously believed.

In Antiquity, there are numerous examples of female warriors and military leaders. The Amazons, mentioned by Herodotus, were not just myths — archaeologists have found Scythian tombs (nomadic people of the Eurasian steppes) with women buried alongside weapons, proving that they fought in battles. Among the Celts, figures like Boudicca, queen of the Iceni, led entire armies against the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD. In feudal Japan, onna-bugeisha, such as Tomoe Gozen, stood out as highly trained samurai. These historical examples demonstrate that female participation in combat was a reality in various cultures.
1/2

>>41592389
Even in more recent periods, women continued to break barriers, during World War II approximately 800,000 Soviet women fought in the Red Army many of them as elite snipers, pilots, and combat medics. The sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko, for example, is considered one of the greatest snipers in history with 309 confirmed kills. These achievements reveal that the ability to wield weapons, lead, and resist is not a matter of sex, but of preparation and determination.

Therefore, the belief that women are biologically destined only for motherhood and domestic care does not withstand historical and scientific analysis. From prehistory to modern times, women have demonstrated strength, intelligence, and courage equal to or greater than that of men. Reducing femininity to fragility is to deny the evidence and perpetuate an outdated view. True history shows that women have always been part of the construction, defense, and progress of humanity and will continue to do so as long as there are those who dare to doubt it.

And not to mention that the idea that women cannot achieve mastery in physical activities is a myth based on prejudice and not on facts. Biological differences between the sexes exist, but they do not determine incapacity. Physical performance depends on training, technique, and discipline—factors accessible to anyone.

Historical and sporting examples prove this: women like Simone Biles, Brigid Kosgei, and An San have reached world-class levels in sports that demand strength, precision, and endurance. When given the same opportunities and training as men, women demonstrate equal competence and body control.

The limit of female physical capacity has never been in the body but in the barriers imposed by society.

And butch lesbians don't want to be men or lite men; they simply express a different form of womanhood. It's about rejecting the idea that femininity needs to be fragile and delicate. It's not an imitation of male masculinity.

>>41592406
>>41592389
And sorry if anything sounds strange, I had to make small adjustments to fit everything into 2,000 words. Even the 2/2 at the end of the text was left out.

I had to trim the text even further because it was quite long and not everything was relevant. In case you're wondering "and the source?", here it is: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd0310

>>41591645
>butches
>plus one normal looking black chick
wtf are they trying to say?

>>41591645
first girl is my type

>>41592406
>Big-game hunting is an overwhelmingly male-biased behavior among recent hunter-gatherer societies (1, 2). Such observations would seem to suggest that this gendered behavioral pattern is an ancestral one, ostensibly stemming from life history traits related to pregnancy and child care, which constrain female subsistence opportunities (3, 4).
I mean from your own link it acknowledges that males are the primary caretakers of women. What it seems to be arguing for is that is was not exclusively a male activity. Which of course could be true but we are still made for pumping out babies for whichever caveman could incorporate us into his harem. The thing I am getting at is that exceptions do not prove the rule, for example see
>Anthropologists characterize human beings as “mildly polygynous” or “monogamous with polygynous tendencies.”[18][19][20][21] The average pre-historic man with modern descendants appears to have had children with between 1.5 women (70,000 years ago) to 3.3 women (45,000 years ago), except in East Asia.[22][23] While the forms of non-monogamy in prehistorical times is unknown, these rates could be consistent with a society that practices serial monogamy. Anthropological observations indicate that even when polygyny is accepted in the community, the majority of relationships in the society are monogamous in practice – while couples remain in the relationship, which may not be lifelong.[17] Thus, in many historical communities, serial monogamy may have been the accepted practice rather than a lifelong monogamous bond.[17] The genetic record indicates that monogamy increased within the last 5,000-10,000 years,[24] a period associated with the development of human agriculture, non-communal land ownership, and inheritance.[25]
Just because some groups were different does not mean that society wasn't formed in such a way for most of our history.

>>41592406
>Biological differences between the sexes exist, but they do not determine incapacity. Physical performance depends on training, technique, and discipline—factors accessible to anyone.
And yet sports are separate by sexes and the average performance of males is almost always higher. We are just inferior, that's the main reason I want to become one of them
>And butch lesbians don't want to be men or lite men; they simply express a different form of womanhood. It's about rejecting the idea that femininity needs to be fragile and delicate. It's not an imitation of male masculinity.
It's literally what the previous text you posted said. They were trying to become men by imitation. I mean just look at the opposite end of the spectrum, they are literally called femme. Butch lesbians are just ftms who are too attached to womanhood and the lesbian identity to outright reject it. But at the same time so many of them even inject male hormones. Like come on, everyone can see they want to replace the role of the man.

>>41591645
are they cosplaying like their boyfriends

>>41591613
TRVTH NVKE
one fuck from chad and she'd accept her rightful place

Some extremely sad cope here. Lesbians are just pathetic.

>>41591576 (OP)
they can't even protect themselves against me when i'm in rapist mode

>>41591576 (OP)
They can get plapped with them lol.

>>41591645
Would.
Every single one of them.

>>41591645
They're all hot but there is an uncanny manner about the way they move. It's like moid skinwalking without actually being trans

>>41593053
>>41593127
The idea that women were "made" only to bear children and serve male harems is a completely distorted interpretation of human history. This view reduces the complexity of social evolution to an animal instinct for domination, when in fact the human species excelled precisely because of cooperation between the sexes. Hunter-gatherer societies did not follow a fixed division: women hunted, fished, and participated in the survival of the group as much as men, as recent studies show, 27% to 30% of 429 burials from hunter-gatherer societies were women hunters.

The narrative that men have always dominated ignores that the basis of humanity was collective care, not individual power. Researchers like Sarah Hrdy and Kristen Hawkes have shown that the "grandmother hypothesis," the role of older women in supporting the raising of children, was essential to the success of the species. In other words, what made us prosper was cooperation and the sharing of responsibilities, not the submission of one gender to the other.

Regarding the idea that polygyny defines our history, it is equally fragile. Genetics and anthropology indicate enormous cultural variation: many groups were monogamous or alternated partners throughout their lives. What we see is adaptation, not a biological rule.

1/1

>>41595002
Therefore, using prehistory to justify modern misogyny is to distort the facts. Women have never been an appendage of men; they have always been an active part of the construction, survival, and collective intelligence that made humanity what it is today.

Biological differences between men and women exist, but they are averages, not death sentences.

Men have testosterone levels about 15 to 20 times higher, which increases muscle mass, bone density, and hemoglobin.

This gives an advantage in strength and endurance sports, but does not define individual capacity.

Women, on average, have 50–60% of the arm strength and 65–70% of the leg strength of men, according to Endocrine Reviews (2018).

The VO2 max of female athletes is around 80–85% of that of male athletes, according to data from the American College of Sports Medicine (2023).

These differences justify separate categories in sports, but not hierarchy.

Before puberty, performances are practically the same; the leap comes with testosterone.

In other words, the body changes, but the value doesn't.

Training, technique, and discipline remain decisive factors.

And none of this has anything to do with identity: being butch, feminine, is not about trying to "become a man."

It's just expression, freedom, and self-definition. Many butch women want to be cared for and pampered; they are women, and being lesbians doesn't make them any less of a woman or trans men.

If your womanhood consists of reproduction and humiliation, you should rethink your worldview.