Thread 24673108

First, let us take as given the definitions of “man” and “woman”: for though there are some who would pretend to ignore even these, that a newborn grasps for his mother’s teat before he can see proves how inherent these categories are. Treat “men” and “women” as disjoint sets, their union encompassing, with the exception of some unfortunate accidents of birth or circumstance, the whole of the human species. Treat these categories as immutable, and any attempt to move between them as what it is: mutilation, mockery, clumsy human imitation of the great Artist.

It was a great gift that God gave Adam in giving him Eve. Born of a rib, sundered from him and then returned, she was to be his companion, to complete him, to provide what he lacked in exchange for his protection. Such was their contract. Note that I am not framing this essay in a strictly theistic ontology by opening with this point: this story is as beautiful an illustration of the human condition as exists, replete with cross-cultural parallels, and even atheists should appreciate its etiological force.

Today, men and women compete increasingly for the same roles, domestically, professionally, in some cases even martially. That some asymmetry (a preferable term to the loaded “inequality”) should persist is not evidence of undesirable social conditions: rather, it is evidence of some bulwark against them.

We aim to show that men and women are distinct and complementary, and that it follows that the ideal social order should structure itself around this fundamental truth. Let us construct our argument by contrapositive. If men and women are equal, then equal inputs should lead to equal outputs. It will suffice to show that equal inputs do not systematically lead to equal outputs for the sexes. Obviously, the world is not a laboratory, and proponents of certain ideologies will surely be apt to claim that “true gender-neutrality has never been tried.” We intend only to weaken their argument down to this single weak point.

>>24673108 (OP)
I use “equal” here to mean “alike in purpose and worth,” as only things like in purpose can be like in worth. It is pointless to call a mahogany chair and reading lamp “equal,” as the two complement each other to achieve a common end, and such is the argument I wish to illustrate for men and women. Pedantic readers may note here that I am dispensing with the Enlightenment notion of “inherent human worth,” an unfalsifiable notion all too easily muddled and which has contributed not insignificantly to our current predicament.

Let us examine the play of young boys and girls, a domain in which we see, with little adulteration and wholly unsympathetic to our ideologies, the bare nature of man. Study after study has confirmed a strong, cross-cultural division, resistant to attempts at integration at home, school, or elsewhere (Maccoby and Jacklin 1987; Whiting and Edwards 1988; Lever 1978).

Girls typically segregate themselves into single-sex groups earlier. These girls are found to favor large group play, almost always narrative, with members taking on and occasionally exchanging set roles. Decisions are made by consensus, and the rare dissenter may be punished with strong emotional reactions from conforming participants, and socially ostracized thereafter. Individuals must be punished for standing out: the group is more important than the sum of them all. This pattern of play is stable across age groups: while participants and roles complexify, the game does not. Eventually, it ceases altogether to be play: around puberty, it becomes the social world of women.

If the play of boys were merely the play of girls with the addition of roughhousing, this loud disturbance to a social world that so favors conformity would probably be in itself sufficient to classify the sexes as different species. But it is deeper than that.

Very young boys, as anyone who remembers his boyhood or has been responsible for one can attest, play far cruder games than girls, often consisting of pushing, shoving, various physical bursts of activity. A female onlooker of any age might recognize in this only chaos, and indeed, compared to the activity of girls of the same age, it is often lacking in sophistication. Yet it is not chaos: the rule is of every boy for himself, with rank constantly altered and reinforced by the law of conquest, retaliation, revenge. Indeed, it is often at this age that a man’s social rank, unfashionable to admit but existing nonetheless, becomes defined and fixed for life.

>>24673110
Boys are not mere cavemen. Unlike with girls, the games of boys constantly redefine themselves with age, tending towards ever greater complexity. Rules-based games are strongly preferred, almost infallibly with clear outcomes, winners, losers. The rules are seen as existing independently from any player: what male play-group has not seen a member try to bend them for some social benefit, only to be mocked as effeminate, implicitly or explicitly? This meta-structure remains stable while the games themselves constantly evolve, reflecting an ever-scaling preference for abstraction. Eventually, the games themselves solidify into socially validated forms, such as sports for strong boys or chess for weak ones. Players pick favorite games and/or categories and stick to them. Yet the meta-structure does not stop evolving there, even if the greater abstracting powers of men leads healthy ones to enjoy explicit play long after healthy women discard it: this pattern of rule-bound competition becomes the skeleton of male society.

There exists a wealth of implication here in which other writers might linger. For one, the male faculty of abstraction is almost certainly responsible for the common incidence of paraphernalic fetishism in unhealthy men. Compare its near-nonexistence in women unless consistently socially rewarded. Another emergent phenomenon: observe the relatively large social networks and egalitarian friendships of all but the unhealthiest adult women, and compare the healthy adult man working in isolation, with a small cadre of close collaborators. Observe the ease with which two men might converse on one’s area of shared expertise and then never speak again; compare the personal tone of nearly any female conversation and the immediate punishment provoked when a participant abstracts away from common knowledge, or indeed reveals any quality not shared by the group. What could account for such consistent patterns other than radically different psychology? But we must not linger here.

Broadly, we will from this point forward consider men as powerful, specialized engines of abstraction and competition, and women as creators and enforcers of social norms, with the object of harmony among themselves (Eagly and Wood 1999; Archer and Coyne 2005).

Traditional societies have, by diverse means and to similar ends, recognized the complementary nature of these divergent natures, and striven to make the most out of both of them. The Romans, Athenians, Mesoamericans, and Chinese all upheld the army as the center of public life, accessible only to men; women occupied their own spheres, separate both from the danger of martial life and the rewards of public life, seen by all but the most unhealthy and conniving among them as masculine vainglory, inherently without value to women (Keegan 1993; Blundell 1995).

>>24673111
In their separate roles, men and women both strived to the best of what their natures could offer. Martial and rhetorical valor, rare today, were then both prerequisite to true masculinity; women near-universally bore artisanal skills such as weaving and sewing that are the near-exclusive business of experts today. This should not be surprising. Optimizing an actor for what it already performs best trivially yields its best results.

Let us consider a divergent example. The Spartans, socially deformed by their need to maintain dominance over a vastly larger slave population, developed perhaps the most rigorous notion of gender equality yet practiced, training boys and girls alike in war, albeit in segregated groups so as, among other things, to avoid temptation. This model was near-universally recognized as cruel to women, as true equal treatment often is (Cartledge 2002; Pomeroy 2002).

Now let us consider modern Occidental societies. Are we anywhere near as egalitarian as the Spartans? Should we strive to be? The answer to both, for any sensible reader, should be “certainly not.” It is considered a low thing for a man to physically strike a woman; a man engaging with a woman like he might with a man, by sharing knowledge, is socially punished as a “mansplainer.”

Yet we act as if we are truly egalitarians. Men and women, in theory, have as much equal access to the same roles as is possible, short of female sperm donors and male surrogate mothers. I hear that it is increasingly fashionable for schools to enforce integration and gender-neutral language, often against the wishes of the children themselves. Gender imparity is seen as an inherent problem in fields as diverse as mechanical engineering and nursing, with programs to counteract it. We are supposedly making progress against it every day. It must be asked: progress towards what kind of society? A Spartan one? We should hope not, for the sake of the girls who will have to live in it.

Enlightened beings that we are, we have progressed in the space of a century from a society in which women struggled to work on equal footing with men to one in which everyone must work as if we all had equal footing. What has this done for us? We are all expected to participate in male competition with female manners. The United States’ military itself discourages “toxic masculinity,” and young girls’ books espouse tech CEOs and Hillary Clinton as role models. Young Occidental men, with no outlets for their healthy masculine drives, turn increasingly to simulations thereof in video games and slacking, extending mere play nearly indefinitely. Young women, forced to compete, are increasingly miserable, even mentally ill.

How far can this drive towards supposed egalitarianism be driven? Where does it stabilize, if anywhere, indeed, if ever?

>>24673113
In Scandinavia, the most equal women in the world segregate themselves, increasingly choosing people and relationship-centered jobs such as nursing. Women in technical fields are a rarity, and often quite unhappy, even in these supposedly happy countries (Hakim 2002; Charles and Bradley 2009). In China, a generation of daughters raised like sons as a byproduct of the one-child policy work themselves to exhaustion and wonder why they’re miserable. They go increasingly unmarried, despite a larger male population (Ji and Yeung 2014; Zhang and Sun 2014).

Indeed, it seems due time to discuss sexuality, dating, reproduction. Logistically, where is the time for reproduction in a society in which everyone must work so hard all the time? It becomes a luxury for the very few: a situation that wouldn’t be such a problem if the old didn’t require a supply of young people to care for them. This in itself may force massive social reorganization across the world sooner than anyone expects (Bloom et al. 2025).

As for relationships themselves, they are miserable. Perhaps we are not yet all so miserable as forcibly masculinized Chinese women, but we will be. Never mind the moral panic surrounding “incels”: the fact that we have developed a specialized vocabulary to describe a large group that feels barred from any chance of romantic fulfillment should be cause enough for alarm. Those men and women who are “getting mad laid” seem no happier: it is often them who are the quickest and fiercest to point out the flaws of the other sex (Maxwell et al. 2023; O’Malley et al. 2023).

Underpinning this mass human misery are the inherent flaws of an open sexual market. Probably the greatest culprit here is the abstracting nature of the male brain, sensitive to goal-states, insensitive to subtleties, able to see any hole within reason as sufficient for its ends. The result is a generation of men all competing more or less for the same set of women, treating them all more or less equally poorly: who can blame them when the possibility is open and when the alternative is sports betting and video games?

For complaints about hypergamy, it seems that women’s desires from men have remained far more reasonable and traditional: consistency, protection, and provision are their most frequent asks, even in our degraded landscape. If a large group of women gravitate towards a small group of men for these things, it is probably because a generation of men has been made weak and incapable of fulfilling these once-basic tasks.

>>24673115
Indeed, knowing that women are effectively relationship-maintaining and social norm-enforcing machines, it is hard for a reasonable man to be upset at women at all in today’s degraded moral landscape. If women themselves by making OnlyFans or acting overtly sexually in public, it can only be because of the near-unlimited social and often material reward of male attention. What else can be expected in a society in which ten thousand video game-addicted perverts are more readily available than one solid, providing husband?

To any bitter incel type who may complain: I am sympathetic to your plight. I am deeply sorry that you have turned out this way. Try, however, to weigh your desire for unlimited sex against a woman’s desire for a providing, masculine husband with social status. Which is more reasonable?

This state of affairs will likely only get worse without intervention. The promise of sex is too addictive for young men to agree to any social reorganization; the availability of unlimited attention and often funds is too addictive for young women. Any noise about “liberation” should be taken no more seriously than a heroin addict claiming to be free at last. Those who partake know what the culture is doing to them.

Yet corrections occur. Male lifestyle influencers, however grating, can be seen as a desperate attempt to make a healthy existence glamorous enough to catch some attention. The largely female-driven push in the last decade for “safe spaces,” however grating, can be understood in retrospect as a desperate attempt at escape from perverting male social incentives. Gender wars, erupting in public fora all over the globe, see men and women picking at each other’s intrinsic characteristics with the ferocity due to an enemy nation.

All of these corrections point to the same solution. We must be returned, by any means necessary, legal, social, or military, to the sort of social order that persisted everywhere on Earth from the dawn of time up until a scant century ago. Let it be a scandal for an unmarried man and woman to be seen in public or private exchange. Let both sexes reclaim their natural spheres and make them the best they can. Ban all distractions whose production and/or consumption degrade one or both of the sexes: video games, pornography, dating apps, and unmoderated fora must all be done away with. Reinstate mandatory military training, at the very least, and preferably service for all men. Let the weak men realize the depth of their shame. Train women once again in the domestic arts, and let them see the masculinized ones as what they are: victims of a world gone mad. That will be a start.

>>24673116
Bibliography
Archer, John, and Sarah M. Coyne. “An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 9, no. 3 (2005): 212–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2.

Bloom, David E., et al. “The Debate over Falling Fertility.” Finance & Development, June 2025. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2025/06/the-debate-over-falling-fertility-david-bloom.

Blundell, Sue. Women in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Cartledge, Paul. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300–362 BC. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.

Charles, Maria, and Karen Bradley. “Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology 114, no. 4 (2009): 924–76. https://doi.org/10.1086/595942.

Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. “The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles.” American Psychologist 54, no. 6 (1999): 408–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.

Hakim, Catherine. “Lifestyle Preferences as Determinants of Women’s Differentiated Labor Market Careers.” Work and Occupations 29, no. 4 (2002): 428–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888402029004003.

Ji, Yingchun, and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung. “Heterogeneity in Contemporary Chinese Marriage.” Journal of Family Issues 35, no. 12 (2014): 1662–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14538030.

Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Lever, Janet. “Sex Differences in the Complexity of Children’s Play and Games.” American Sociological Review 43, no. 4 (1978): 471–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094773.

Maccoby, Eleanor E., and Carol N. Jacklin. “Gender Segregation in Childhood.” Advances in Child Development and Behavior 20 (1987): 239–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60404-8.

Maxwell, Emily, et al. “An Exploratory Study of Incels’ Dating App Experiences, Mental Health, and Relational Well-Being.” Journal of Sex Research 60, no. 9 (2023): 1271–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2249775.

O’Malley, Rachel L., et al. “Involuntary Celibacy: A Review of Incel Ideology and Experiences with Dating, Rejection, and Associated Mental Health and Emotional Sequelae.” Sexuality & Culture 27, no. 4 (2023): 1534–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-10047-8.

Pomeroy, Sarah B. Spartan Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Whiting, Beatrice B., and Carolyn P. Edwards. Children of Different Worlds: The Formation of Social Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Zhang, Yuanting, and Jia Sun. “Gender Imbalance and Its Consequences on Marriage and Family in Contemporary China.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 45, no. 2 (2014): 211–30. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.45.2.211.

>>24673108 (OP)
More to come at https://artchandler1.substack.com/p/on-the-separation-of-men-and-women

>>24673108 (OP)
Faggot

>>24673108 (OP)
>We aim to show that men and women are distinct
True
>and complementary
False
Men need women like a bear needs a tapeworm

>>24673116
>>24673115
Typical male blaming slop.
>Women are being reasonable you can't blame them for fucking around, you dumb moids need to regulate your behavior.
God's above these people need to be killed.

>>24673423
That is not at all what I am saying.
Women are children. Men are adults. But men must lead better.

>>24673407
Spoken like someone who's never known the Divine Feminine

>Treat these categories as immutable, and any attempt to move between them as what it is: mutilation, mockery, clumsy human imitation of the great Artist.

You can't write a scientific paper and sincerely refer to "the great artist" in the first paragraph, anon.

To test the rigours of your thesis we must first explore the fluid transformation between one and the other, or else you just throw your point at the feet of God, who you have already labled "artist," not "scientist" and thus will only provide interpretations, not data.

OP continues to be a fag

>>24673116
Interesting read but why do you have such a disdain for vidya

>>24673467
You just repeated back to me that it's men's fault again.
We just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and marry that single mom, it's how we save the west.

>>24674122
Have you been to war?

>>24673952
He's bad at them, many such cases

>>24673952
Vidya is for the male brain what OnlyFans is for the female brain.

>>24673116
> What else can be expected in a society in which ten thousand video game-addicted perverts are more readily available than one solid, providing husband? To any bitter incel type who may complain: I am sympathetic to your plight. I am deeply sorry that you have turned out this way. Try, however, to weigh your desire for unlimited sex against a woman’s desire for a providing, masculine husband with social status. Which is more reasonable?
And there it is….rabbis really are trying to destroy this board

>>24674307
Out here fighting the culture war every day, Brother.

>>24674374
By telling you to be a real man?

>>24674411
>A real man is one who works himself to the bone for 80 hrs a week to support a system which gives him nothing in return.
By your feminine catty remarks, I can tell you are either a W*men or a circumcised male (eunuch)

>>24674307
Name one (1) contemporary example worth fighting.

>>24674418
Tell me why you think you deserve a woman.

>>24674429
You don't get to decide.
Anyway, the anti-communist struggle in South Asia.

>>24674432
>You don't get to decide.
Subtlest zio-shill

>Anyway, the anti-communist struggle in South Asia
Yeah I‘ll go learn a bunch of island languages and throw myself into a foreign environment with no institutional support and accept those odds of nothing dehumanizing happening to me in order to free up those areas for capitalist neo-colonization. Or women could stop having children without a father present.

>>24674452
No. Kikes don't get a place in the Holy Land unless they convert. Just like anywhere else.
I agree that women ought to stop having children without a father present, but you must understand the female brain. They are on the level of children in terms of abstraction, cost-benefit analysis, all the things that allow you as a man to thrive. They are basically children. That means that you are responsible.

>>24674430
Tell me what a women has done to deserve me.
For once let a them take accountability for their own failings, instead of playing this absurb white knight game.
Shit like this is why Islam is the future

>>24674462
>No. Kikes don't get a place in the Holy Land unless they convert. Just like anywhere else.

What are you even talking about?

>I agree that women ought to stop having children without a father present, but you must understand the female brain. They are on the level of children in terms of abstraction, cost-benefit analysis, all the things that allow you as a man to thrive. They are basically children. That means that you are responsible.

They‘ll figure it out pretty quickly if we withdraw the public resources which make single motherhood viable.

>>24673867
Another Fag blinded by vainglory.
Without God we are nothing. Nothing. If you don't understand yet, that's okay: you will in time. But do not slander.

>>24674478
You accused me of being a Zio shill, so I am making my position clear.
The ticket to the holy land is conversion into the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nothing more and nothing less. Kikes and Saracens alike get the sea.

>They'll figure it out pretty quickly if we withdraw the public resources which make single motherhood viable.
Excellent idea, anon. I agree. Let the Church take up the work of raising those children as it traditionally has.

>>24674487
Oh, it‘s a reclaim jerusalem sperg. This is who‘s telling us it‘s unreasonable to expect gfs. If we haven‘t first trasmuted our objective to a boondogle from a century ago which also failed then.

Well this was kind of funny anyway.

>>24674501
Do you want to live in a society that survives the coming century or not?
Because an atheist society will not.

>>24674501
A millennium*

At least this correction gives me a chance to add that it‘s funny this nigger wants the church (a massive depository of public resources) to take over what part of raising children actually does still fall to single mothers so that they come clean off the hook to go out and become single mothers again.

>>24674512
Not if society looks on them with the half-shame, half-pity due, as it used to.

>>24674511
No, I do not want this society to survive the coming century. Which is why on recognizing that it won‘t I‘ve turned my energy to something productive like self-sustenance instead of a crusader kings larp for the honor of single mothers.

>>24674525
The day will come when you realize you need something greater than yourself. Worship of the self leads to collapse, nothingness, and then eternity in the flames.
I hope your day comes before it's too late. Until then, I will pray for you.

>>24674537
I‘m here because my ethereal meaning is in art (and nature.) Keep your rabbi‘s slop.

>>24674537
>Until then, I will pray for you.
You must have been swelling with pride with a comeback like that.

Nice read, ballsy to call out videogames here.

>>24674554
Almost all art fades fast. Even great art fades slow. Only God is eternal.

>>24674943
By the same standards you apply to art, Yahweh is a practical non-entity in peoples‘ minds as we speak.

>>24674952
You know that I am not operating within an atheistic ontology, so why are you stating the rules if an alien system as if I am? It is like telling a professor of linear algebra, "well, multiplication of real numbers is commutative, so multiplication of matrices must be too."

>>24674799
It's what must be done.

>>24674474
Women are mentally children. They are more dependent than young boys, who can at least be intrepid.
Accept this and man up accordingly. You, as a man, deserve to know the full glory of your station. And if you do not rise to meet yours, know that the Saracens will, and their victory will be for your refusal, not my remarking it.

>>24674983
>You know that I am not operating within an atheistic ontology,

Me neither but you wanted to posit that.

>>24675002
Then you making a heretical claim by comparing God to the works of man.

>>24674429
I left for Syria when I was 16. I have stood in battle against the Americans, Iranians, Hezbollah, SAA, Kurds, and Russians. Unfortunately, I am no longer allowed back to my home, or in Syria. Such is life.

>>24675000
>Women are mentally children.
Current society has raised and enforced people to believe in all sorts of contradictory behaviors and notions against this. And now modernized women and playing into the dynamics are simply not worth it, not to mention the degenerated state of culture in general. It's absurd to compel the same traditional male obligations.

>>24675011
I would never (unlike desert screeds the works of man and Nature are cool and life-affirming.)

>>24675027
Genuinely cool and I appreciate the input but unfortunately I don‘t know that it is applicable for burgers who want life to be less gay and disingenuous (maybe it is in which case I appreciate any input.) What‘s your home country?

>>24673108 (OP)
I don't know if anyone has ever told you, but are you sure you are not a retard?
>If men and women are equal, then equal inputs should lead to equal outputs.
>I use “equal” here to mean “alike in purpose and worth,”
>Let us examine the play of young boys and girls...the bare nature of man.

If i tell a boy and then a girl to get me a glass of water and they in fact both get me a glass of water, was that an equal input that lead to an equal result therefor your retardation demands for them to be equal? Or does input have to be something way more vague and complicated, with variables that we can't take into account since we most likely don't even they are there doing their part and then shove our head into our ass and claim to be measuring?

Then, you speak of "purpose" and "worth", so my purpose is what exactly anon? I am a male by the way, so if you could save me all that existential anxiety by defining me my purpose and my worth i would be eternally grateful.

And you don't even stop there, you go forward with your nonsense, examining the play between groups of girls and boys, RiGhT WhErE ThE BaRe NaTuRe oF mAn GeTs RevEAlEd. XDDDDDDDDD
And by the way if you give a definition stick to it. Also if you are talking about equality and yet you are unable to differentiate it from sameness, kys.

>>24675000
>Women are mentally children. They are more dependent than young boys, who can at least be intrepid.
That's why I will have nothing to do with them.
Why should I bear the weight on my back that is W*men.
>Accept this and man up accordingly
I am, which is why I reject your pussy worship and attempts to shame me into slavery.

>>24675000
I do agree that videogames should be banned. They are an insane waste of time, foster a sedentary habitus and have no value. It is sad that such an obvious fact should be so difficult to dismiss on a board where one might have expected at least a minimal degree of awareness. But then, the alcoholic always find a good reason to drink.

>>24675106
If slaving away nowadays is rewarded with pussy then all i have to say is: Throw me into those cotton fields, i am ready!

Stop being so fucking dense anon, whether you are a slave here or somewhere else doesn't change a thing. At least try to be a slave at a place where it does not make you feel like seething at others.

>it's mens' fault

Nice try

>>24675111
Only out of respect for rolling trips.Checkd

But let's say you ban video games, do you stop there? What kind of activities would remain legal for someone to spend their free time? Is anything related to escapism gonna get banned or you stop at video games? And what about those gamer dads and not that evil caricature you have in your mind of a degenerate, gaming 16 hours a day while watching twitch streamers on their second monitor? Are they the same? They deserve the same treatment?

>>24675116
You sound much more pathetic here than the vidya game males you critique ironically.

>>24675111
If we ban video games for men then social media aps and tiktok should be banned for women's sakes

>>24675127
Fucking hell, what made you think i was OP? Bruh, call me whatever you want but i would never be such a giant fag*ot as OP.

If "vidya game males" are the otherness you use to define your "being", sorry but then you are being equally pathetic, and trust me anon, i only mean well, didn't plan to piss you off but maybe i should have. Unless there is an easier to cure your dellusions.

>>24675111
>How dare you Goy spend some time for pleasure you could be working a second shift
>We need those tax dollars for replacement migration and girlboss Jobs

>>24675147
>Fucking hell, what made you think i was OP?
I had hoped there was only one faggot in this thread.
Now I have the displeasure of knowing it has attracted a second.

>>24675125
I don't think we should ban anything, because in truth we cannot ban anything. When I wrote “banned”, what I meant was that we should all collectively remove videogames from the respectable activities for young men, rather than pursue any kind of legal prohibition. I share part of OP's diagnosis, though not all of it, and especially not the solution he proposes. There will be no military operation to drive whores off OnlyFans, we will not outlaw pornography or switch off the internet, there will be no national service, as in the past, nor any rollback of what feminism has achieved in the past decades. This is just a fantasm, not any suggestion grounded in reality.

I have no solution to offer, so I fall back on the principle that has guided me since I was a teenager. It may not be in my capacity to halt decadence, but it is to ensure that decadence does not pass through me. Videogames are a poison, whether it is a teenager squandering hours on Call of Duty or a housewife in her forties playing Candy Crush over a cup of coffee. You may play some, indeed, but just as others may smoke, or may watch television, or may idle away time on TikTok. However the man you want to become, that man you ought to work to become, that man has no business with videogames.

>>24675176
And what if one is satisfied with mediocre results? What if the man they aspire to be is no big man, but rather a man who requires minimum effort? What kind of man are you describing when you claim "you ought to work to become", as in you have figured it out? If so, is it your idea or someone's else?

If the mediocre man you despise is some sort of pathology in modern societies, what makes you believe that the version of your man is not the same? Biggest problems for humanity is stupidity and it ain't video games or lack of work that cause it, that's all i am gonna say.

>>24675213
Then you're part of the problem, and I'm aware that most males in our society are content with being uneducated obese larvae.

Very sexist thread here friendo. A woman can do anything a man can and doesn't need him.

>>24675095
Retard incapable of abstraction. Possibly a woman.
The existence of some inputs that lead to similar outputs does not prove that is the case for all inputs. A man and bear will respond similarly to being punched in the face, but they are not the same.

>>24675106
>pussy worship
Far from it.
Men have greater potential than women, and therefore greater duty. Thus a man who fails or abdicates his duty is contemptible, whereas a corrupted woman is merely regrettable, like a delinquent child.
>Why should I bear the weight on my back that is W*men.
Because by being born a man, you have been drafted to bear the weight on your back that is society. Your reward will be glory.

>>24675176
A black market will always exist. The crux is to make procuring the contraband far more unpleasant than using the contraband is pleasant.
If that sounds paternalistic, good. "Paternalism" means nothing other than "fatherliness." It speaks volumes that this has become a near-curse in our fallen society.

>>24675213
Then you are more contemptible than the most fallen woman, since you had all the potential for greatness and chose to squander it.

>>24675247
Then you are using a complicated notion of input and abstraction in that case is just laziness, be abstract with terms that it is appropriate to be abstract. When you examine human behaviour/nature there is no room for abstraction towards the terminology that will construct your arguement.
Retard who just read a pdf and figured it all out, probably a woman born inside a man's body, trying to cope.

>>24675263
I assume you're the original poster. I don't waste time with the illusion of a cure, there won't be any piece of legislation, any such action from the government. We must reason from reality, not caprices.

>>24675277
It's you who has the inconsistent notion of inputs and outputs if you can't understand the notion of "for all inputs..."
This is very basic mathematics. Sub-mathematical logic, even. A = B if and only if A(x) = B(x) for all x. Or did you sleep through your studies and try making up for them here?

>>24675290
The most capricious, unrealistic assumption I can imagine is that our current world system will persist for any length.

>>24673116
>We must be returned, by any means necessary, legal, social, or military, to the sort of social order that persisted everywhere on Earth from the dawn of time up until a scant century ago.
You would have to get rid of crapitalism and media culture. Basically impossible without reversing technological and cultural development of the last several decades. We're stuck with what we are and the "man up" exclamations for a bygone era are just gonna further blackpill men.

>>24675291
This is embarassing, you probably hold a bachelor or something, hell if i had to bet i would even place at the third year of your studies.
The fact you claim to have knowledge of a mathematic axiom, doesn't necessarily guarantees that you put the same rigor into your theoretical constructs. And there is nothing rigorous in that text you written. From your replies it is quite clear that i have to spoon feed you cause you are not even at the level of thinking that would allow you to grasp the necessity of strict definitions when it comes to conceptual work. All i am gonna say, and close it here, is that you don't deal with "numbers", the fact you use the same word is not the same as using the same number or equation.

>>24675310
>doesn't necessarily guarantees
Opinion discarded.

>>24673734
I'd rather have cunny

>>24673108 (OP)
>>24673110
>>24673111
This was a very interesting read, I think you were onto something regarding the child's play.
Everything else was fucking slop
>women suck because men don't lead them well enough goy, suck it up and man up, go die for them please
Get fucked, it's time to accept women have agency and they choose to be stupid and evil. This ship shall burn with all of us aboard

>>24675376
If you understood anything at all about child's play, you understood that individual women simply do not have agency.
Healthy women view the world as a web of relationships and strive to maintain equilibrium therein. They are for the most part incapable of abstract reasoning; they can take on abstract values only as functions of the social benefits and penalties attached. Those that can understand things and ideas for themselves at all can only do so on the level of male children, and are usually damaged women besides.
What does this mean? If you are smart, you've already figured it out. Males, capable of abstract reasoning, set proper values in place and lead by assigning social rewards and penalties. Women follow suit by enforcing conformity. If the values are good, society thrives. If the values are bad, as in our society, women are degraded first, and then the men they raise.

>>24675307
Once again, the most unrealistic assumption of all may be that our current world-system will persist.

>>24675253
>Men have greater potential than women
Without a doubt
>therefore greater duty.
Not in the slightess.
In the true spirit of fairness, I will give to women all the support they have given me.
None at all.
Begone slaver, bother someone else with your lies

>>24675396
There is not a force on the planet that can stop women from whoring themselves out.
The only difference from yesteryear is that technology has made it obvious to men how fundamentally rotten women are.
Your begone age of loyal women is a delusion

>>24675395
Fuck you and fuck your cuck mentality
I have my revenge on women every day by grooming their offspring
They owe it to me until they apologize for making me miserable the first 20 years of my life

>>24675421
>>24675435
>>24675441
Men are to women as men are to children.
Whenever you make a statement about the duty or morality of women, try making the same statement about children.
Your children will owe you in your old age after you have done your duty for them. The same is true of women.
Women do not however "owe" you an apology for "making you miserable" any more than a delinquent child owes his negligent parents an apology.
The very statement is hideously effeminate. Are you sure you're not a faggot?

>>24675460
You are a pussy whipped faggot that wouldn't be capable of smacking your bitch in the face if she started to act up like a spoiled brat.
I was born into this world and things were already fucked up mate, step up your game, the average man can't do jackshit about palantir and big tech fucking up society and the natural (lol) equilibrium of sexes you seem to uphold with such a conviction, if you really believed the sexes are so different, first of all you would immediatly move to an amish community or become a mormon instead of shilling this repugnant idea of "manning up".

>>24675460
>You're obligated
>It's your duty
>Man up Chud
Not once have you provided any incentive for men to guide women.
No carrot, only effeminate attempts of shaming men as the stick.
And you wonder why we spit in your face.

>>24675470
You have no idea who I am.

>>24675479
>incentives
Your incentive is purpose, tradition, posterity, religion. Do you need more?

>>24675507
>Your incentive is purpose, tradition, posterity, religion. Do you need more?
Clearly the answer is yes.
I don't value a single item on that list you provided.
Most men don't.
In fact those are things that women cherish, there is a reason they are the more religious, closed minded sex.

>>24675507
Yes, I know you are weak and pussy whipped, you possibly expect women to act in a good manner all the time, given everything is ok, all their needs are met, they have hobbies and recreational activities, given they have children to tend, given they have a good husband, but guess what, sometimes women decide shit is going to hit the fan for everyone, for their children, for the men in their life, just to test their limites. Are you capable enough of exerting the brutality needed to keep women in check? I doubt it, you are a pussy whipped faggot, nothing more, nothing less.
Give me a single society that managed to keep women under tight leashes, I guess you'll soon find out they are all gone and extinct

>>24675507
>purpose
What purpose?
>tradition
How will tradition keep up with modern insanity? You are larping
>posterity
Lol, sure, let's bring more people to suffer endlessly, how could things become worse?
>religion
Shalom

>>24675521
Every worthwhile society is gone and extinct today. There is not a truly Catholic society left on earth. It is the duty of all mankind to change that.
Women must be kept under tight supervision just like children. That is a permanent fact of the human condition. If they escape supervision and make trouble, they are to be punished; if they do so frequently, their guardians are to be blamed.

>>24675520
>I don't value a single item on that list you provided.
Then I will pray for you.

>>24675533
>that universal prayer which has been nervously whispered, spoken, chanted, shouted and even screamed towards the air in every known language and now misplaced dialect since time immemorial, Deliver us from evil, has never, and will never be answered. One cannot, after all, be ‘delivered’ from one’s source.

>>24675533
>There is not a truly Catholic society left on earth
Hmm I wonder why?
Maybe because your cancerous servile society isn't worth preserving.
No that's it impossible clearly the entire world is at fault

This is so stupid
Why do we have to shield women from the consequences of their own actions? Is it that bad that men want women to have souls instead of them being mindless meat machines to stick your dick into and rear your children? But having a soul comes with the price of free will
In this I think men should mirror god; for the perversely minded, simply killing the trinkets of your greatest amusement and nutritional satisfaction produces at best only temporary elation, a dazzling sensation that is over in a flash, but to permit your prey to fear calamity and to live through catastrophes large and small, to hope and to weep and to lament, to feel anguish over things lost, to regret things found, and to suffer with physical discomfort, emotional injuries and psychological lesions is the wellhead of enduring pleasure.
I simply want women to suffer the consequences of their own actions, then, maybe in the future, enough genes will rearrange themselves to finally produce common sense in their brains and a new golden age will begin

>>24675555
>I simply want women to suffer the consequences of their own actions
Then you want a man. Faggot.

>>24675559
Here lies the issue with your thesis, if women want to act like children and should be treated as such
Why can't I simply pick up prime cunny? Endless rivers of children for me but not for thee, and this will force evolution to produce women with more childish features, is this your endgame?

>>24675555
Sorry retards but quads speak the truth.

OP is a simp and should be thrown off a building

inshallah

>>24675555
checked

sorry, king

didn't even notice

>>24673108 (OP)
OP would see a friend or a member of his family get absolutely ass raped in court by a bpd bitch and would tell him later "I guess you fucked and didn't treat her like a child m8, you see, women are like children..."

>>24675575
Wrong. Divorce should be illegal unless initiated by a man on religious grounds.

>>24675559
Even children need to suffer consequences of their own actions or they will never learn.
What excuse do you give women.

>>24675592
Not in the society you are living today bucko
Also, divorce is wrong and you should kill your woman before divorcing her, I agree

>>24675596
Surely. And neither should they ever be trusted to act on their own without punishment. If they escape surveillance and misbehave, they should be severely punished. If they aren't surveilled and misbehave, then their guardians have failed.

>>24675460
Anon, first of all, I need you to clarify what distinguishes women from children, then you can proceed with your schizo talk

>>24675607
Women are distinguished from female children by the ability to marry and reproduce, and their increased social authority over other women and children.
Women are distinguished from male children by their lower capacity for abstraction and greater emotionality. That means they should be trusted less.

>>24675617
>Women are distinguished from female children by the ability to marry and reproduce
We can start being friends now

>>24675619
Delete that picture.

>>24675680
No

>>24675507
>>24675533
Okay, OP, you speak fine words for the values of bygone ages. But explain what a man individually should do with women in this present modern world? Become a simp? Help incite a revolution? Join a communal cult?

>>24675816
Lead by example. Join the one true religion and uphold it in all ways and without illusions. When the time comes, lead others.

>>24675819
>Join the one true religion
Which happens to be the papal government right.

>>24675819
>Join the one true religion and uphold it in all ways and without illusions
Gnostics rise up

>>24675825
Not the current one.

>>24673108 (OP)
is it gay if your eye is drawn to the figure on the left instead of the one on the right?

>>24676062
He can do better desu

>>24673116
I do not object to the old order of things on the basis that it treats men and women differently; I acknowledge they are in fact different, as anyone with functioning eyes can see (though I think there do exist some people with natures highly atypical of their sex) and that this obviously means they cannot be treated identically in practice. I object to it on the basis that it causes them suffering: cripples their feet so they cannot walk, mutilates their genitalia with rusty knives (yes, I object strenuously to male genital mutilation as well, before you try to use that as a gotcha), keeps them trapped in marriages to violent alcoholic rapists with starvation as the alternative. That said, I don't claim to know what a truly just and good order for both sexes would look like; I don't know whether my status as one of those 'unfortunate accidents of birth of circumstance' makes me more suited to see through to such a thing or less.

>>24674480
If you want to believe in God on your own time, that is your business, but he is not relevant to scientific questions unless you can put the evidence for him on scientific footing.

Responding to specific individual points:
>>24673108 (OP)
>Treat “men” and “women” as disjoint sets, their union encompassing, with the exception of some unfortunate accidents of birth or circumstance, the whole of the human species.
Don't those 'unfortunate accidents' prove by their existence that they're not completely disjoint? (This doesn't negate that men and women are, on average, different, of course.)

>>24673110
>Pedantic readers may note here that I am dispensing with the Enlightenment notion of “inherent human worth,” an unfalsifiable notion all too easily muddled and which has contributed not insignificantly to our current predicament.
At least to me, "men and women both have inherent human worth" just means "my utility function weights men and women's pleasure and suffering the same amount" (i.e. I consider it equally good for a man or a woman to receive one util and equally bad for a man or a woman to suffer one dolor), though I realize that most people have not thought about it that deeply.
>Study after study has confirmed a strong, cross-cultural division, resistant to attempts at integration at home, school, or elsewhere
It seems difficult to parse out to what extent a cross-cultural tendency is the product of inborn differences and to what extent it is the product of socialization combined with convergent cultural evolution produced by similar material conditions. Hunter-gatherer and hoe-farming cultures, for example, have gendered division of labor, but often lack the subjugation of women present in plow-farming cultures; if you only ever studied plow-farming cultures (which our great civilizations descend from) you might conclude female subjugation was simply universal and inevitable when in fact there are societies that lack it.

>>24673111
>For one, the male faculty of abstraction is almost certainly responsible for the common incidence of paraphernalic fetishism in unhealthy men. Compare its near-nonexistence in women unless consistently socially rewarded.
Why do you specify paraphernalic fetishism (a term which I literally cannot find another instance of on Google, but I assume means fetishism for specific articles of clothing, a notably male-dominated field) in particular as opposed to other forms of fetishism? (Certainly women do have paraphilias, but they tend to have different ones than men.)

>>24673115
>Logistically, where is the time for reproduction in a society in which everyone must work so hard all the time?
I would have said this is more the issue of capital than of feminism; Kropotkin calculated in 1892(!) that thanks to automation society could be sustained on an average of roughly 15 hours of labor per week per able bodied adult, but we have to create a bunch of bullshit jobs because line go up.

>>24673116
>If women themselves by making OnlyFans or acting overtly sexually in public, it can only be because of the near-unlimited social and often material reward of male attention.
I think you accidentally a word here.

>>24673116
>Male lifestyle influencers, however grating, can be seen as a desperate attempt to make a healthy existence glamorous enough to catch some attention.
But is what they promote healthy, in practice? I would question this premise. It often seems more like they're promoting the glamor and illusion of a high-status life without the material basis. (In short, television society taken to its logical conclusion just as TikTok is the logical conclusion of television.)
>We must be returned, by any means necessary, legal, social, or military, to the sort of social order that persisted everywhere on Earth from the dawn of time up until a scant century ago.
And this is where you depart from cogency, I'm afraid. Leaving aside the other objections I've brought up (>>24676215) the fundamental fact is that the arrow of time moves in only one direction. The past is gone utterly; its material conditions no longer exist. You can no more bring back the old social order than you can revive a dead man. See We Wrestle Not With Flesh And Blood, But Against Powers And Principalities:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/
That's not to say I don't think the current state of affairs is deeply broken; it plainly is. But if we're to have something better than it, it will necessarily be something new. The only way out is through, as the saying goes.
>unmoderated fora must [...] be done away with
He says on an unmoderated forum (I kid, I kid)
>Train women once again in the domestic arts
Isn't the decline of domestic female sewing and weaving more to do with mechanization than anything? It's rendered domestic weaving by anyone unprofitable.
>and let them see the masculinized ones as what they are: victims of a world gone mad
Mightn't at least some simply be women whose natures are atypical of their sex?

>>24676220
You dropped your fedora

>>24675395
>Healthy women view the world as a web of relationships and strive to maintain equilibrium therein.
Can autistic women be healthy?

>>24675592
What if a man is beating and raping his wife? What if he's failing to provide for her?

>>24676312
Not an argument.

>>24676323
Autistic is not healthy.

>>24676328
Then other men try him and bring him to justice.

>>24676307
>material conditions
Marxist detected. I am sorry to tell you that this invalidates the whole of your argument, as a worldview without god leads nowhere but the pit. I will pray for you. If you do not reform your ways before society necessarily changes, I will be sorry to see you before the firing squad.

>>24676445
So what should they do? It's not as if they can stop being autistic.
>>24676454
Okay, but leaving aside terminological quibbles- do you think human society can but be affected by the means in which it produces the necessary materials of its existence? Address my actual point, dammit!

How do I become as smart as this?

>>24676454
>>24676465
For the record, I'm not even a Marxist, though I do think some of Marx's concepts can make for useful analysis. (Broadly, I think his diagnosis was better than his prognosis, and his prognosis was better than his prescription.)

>>24676465
>So what should they do? It's not as if they can stop being autistic.
Perhaps the Church can find a use for them.
>Okay, but leaving aside terminological quibbles- do you think human society can but be affected by the means in which it produces the necessary materials of its existence? Address my actual point, dammit!
As said before, perhaps the most unreasonable thing of all is to think that this society won't burn itself out soon. When that happens, alternative structures will be needed. Traditional ones are good candidates.

>>24676476
Work out at the library

>>24676486
>Perhaps the Church can find a use for them.
Such as? And what if they don't believe that there's a God? People can't generally choose to believe things they don't actually believe- especially not autistic people.
>As said before, perhaps the most unreasonable thing of all is to think that this society won't burn itself out soon. When that happens, alternative structures will be needed. Traditional ones are good candidates.
But those existed in particular circumstances, how are you going to make things work like they used to when the material causes of their having been like that are no longer in effect?

>>24675507
>Your incentive is purpose, tradition, posterity, religion
It's telling you couldn't offer a single material thing, but so sononyms for empty air and broken promises

>>24676328
If she can't handle him at his worst she doesn't deserve him at his best

>>24676838
>>24676492
The true religion is ever enduring.