Thread 82242606

See picrel. Its just reality. Women whine so much about sexism, and then act like the problem of sexism is primarily a matter of incels, of unattractive men who can't date. But the reality is that the men women let date them are literally considerably more likely to hold sexist views than the men that women don't date, who hold more egalitarian, feminist values

Women should lower their goddamn standards and settle for male feminist incels like me if they actually oppose sexism. Its fucked up that guys like me have to rot alone, and furthermore have to be slandered and smeared by women as sexists when the real sexists are the men they allow inside of them (chads)

But women utterly refuse to accept that part of the problem is the men they prefer to date, because openly speaking to the problem would mean potentially making the sexist chads they prefer to date get angry at them and be less likely to want them

Plus many women simply judge men's sexism more due to agreeableness than actual values and material concerns. The man who says women should have the same opportunities and be treated equally, but then also equally calls out bad behavior when it comes from women, will be seen as sexist while the attractive charismatic man who "agrees" with whatever the woman says in a dismissive "that's nice, babe" way while uttering and supporting extreme sexism behind her back will be seen as way less sexist than the first guy. Its fucked up.

>>82242606 (OP)
Yea, because incels who literally never challenge them on anything are annoying as fuck. We had a thread the other day where some dude posted his text conversation with this girl, he didnt agree with what she said, so he gave his opinion and told her so. Literally every single post in the thread just about was these faggot ass incels telling him to apologize.
>ohhhhh dude you did it all wrong you have to worship the ground they walk on to get pussy bro
Holy shit man what kind of person would want a retarded little doormat like that? Fact is incels talk mad shit about hating women, but the very second one gives you fucks attention you go full simp mode and agree with every single fucking thing they say.

>>82242606 (OP)
Remember that trannies post anti incel threads on the daily here. Most actual women either don't care to come here, are lurking among you or are just camwhores shilling their channels/accounts

>>82242629
There's way more actual women than trans people. There's that one trans who posts a lot but IIRC they mostly post racebait rather than incel stuff. And actual women are mostly the ones raging against incels

>>82242692
Which one? Beanie or Stella or whatever. There also the interracial spam from that one tranny

>>82242620
Post link to thread or didn't happen faggot

>>82242606 (OP)
I love drastic graph fall. Tsunami is coming.

>>82242620
Not really sure what you are on about here
>Fact is incels talk mad shit about hating women, but the very second one gives you fucks attention you go full simp mode and agree with every single fucking thing they say.
Most incels aren't talking shit about hating women to begin with. Research (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research) shows that only a minority of incels are particularly sexist to begin with, most aren't sexist and openly lean left rather than right.

This can also be part of the problem - women identifying as progressive/left but still wanting the benefits of tradition for women with stuff like men providing, paying for and planning dates, taking control, performing gender roles, etc. And then getting mad at the incels who overall lean left and simply refuse to pander to women by agreeing with women's expectations of men to perform traditional roles and accept female sexism towards women

>>82242606 (OP)
>Women should lower their goddamn standards and settle for male feminist incels like me if they actually oppose sexism.
Lesson here women are illogical and driven by emotions. They would never act analytically.

>>82242697
>There also the interracial spam from that one tranny
That's the one I was talking about, Bane or something iirc (but I'm not really in the loop on 4chan personalities), they are also the one posting lots of racebait in general, one minute they'll be posting about how black men are emasculating white men and how women see white men as pathetic losers, and the next minute they'll be posting about how white men are genetically superior and women see black men as a bunch of inferior thugs (the reality of course is that women thirst for chads of all races and utterly despise incels of all races). Most of those posts are just from the one trans spammer
>>82242707
I don't like to see it because I genuinely care about equality. But its frustrating that women will STILL keep pandering to the more sexist chads while rejecting the less sexist incels

>>82242712
>This can also be part of the problem - women identifying as progressive/left but still wanting the benefits of tradition for women with stuff like men providing, paying for and planning dates, taking control, performing gender roles, etc
See? Women's rights were never about equality. Man voted against their own interests for nothing.
That is the lesson here, society is zero summ game. Giving others you take from yourself. So stop acting against your own interests ffs.

>>82242720
Women are humans just like the rest of us. They are just as capable of logic and rationality as the rest of us are. Its not that they are inherently illogical and driven by emotions. Its that they simply choose not to be reasonable or decent, and instead choose to rationalize and justify their chad-worship

Plus there's a lot of dumb pop culture societal stuff that values progress but largely just as a way to be popular, and without actually caring about broader ideals or being consistent, instead just defaulting to assuming "well if a woman said it, it must be right, right?" which allows women to be rewarded despite saying things that are illogical and actually pretty regressive and such

>>82242731
>I don't like to see it because I genuinely care about equality.
I like it because slow rot only produces rot and we're are deep crisis socially. Drastic change can bring Revolution and revolutions are cleansing that give birth to new better world. (if successful but better hope then hopeless rot).

>>82242744
>Women are humans just like the rest of us. They are just as capable of logic and rationality as the rest of us are.
*citation needed*
No don't give me suffragists sources.

>>82242732
>See? Women's rights were never about equality. Man voted against their own interests for nothing.
This isn't true either though. Often movement feminism, when it comes to stuff like historical activists and academics and such, has been about pushing towards more equality (as well as liberation, vs simple equality within a system that is oppressive and unfair even with gender equality). The biggest problem today is the de-ideology-ification of so many things, and the shift to a politics that is more and more based on social media idiocy. With a generation of people increasingly raised on social media, where their view of "feminism" is primarily informed by social media, and by "men bad LMAO" posts that are often artificially boosted by algorithms and bots and such (though its not all that, some of it is organic too, and influenced by various other factors) rather than anything connected to, like, feminist academics writing about the real world or feminist activists doing things in the real world
>That is the lesson here, society is zero summ game.
That's just blatantly, stupidly wrong
>Giving others you take from yourself. So stop acting against your own interests ffs.
We can build a world that is better for everyone. I don't fucking want women to be oppressed, and the folks who want to oppress women also want to enforce traditional expectations and roles on men. And those traditional roles and expectations harm men, rather than help us. The folks who push against women's rights also push against nonmasculine men like me. Ultimately standing up against gender traditionalism and sexism for all is, in part, me standing up for my own interests too. Its for all our interests.

>>82242774
You are the faggot that is in the other thread that literally just says men are trash and deserve to be treated that way. Opinion discarded.

>>82242606 (OP)
what women prefer in regards to what they find sexually attractive is not a justification for changing your belief system

logic, facts, reason, evidence are how we ought change our opinions what what is true about the world. even if that entails holding beliefs women find sexually repulsive

>>82242774
>Often movement feminism, when it comes to stuff like historical activists and academics and such, has been about pushing towards more equality
Show me female equivalent of the pic

>That is the lesson here, society is zero summ game.
>That's just blatantly, stupidly wrong
That is true redpill. If you alone on on inhabited island you don't need rights. You can do whatever you want. Rights only exist when applied to others. Rights are barrier between you desires and desires of others. Getting more for you is moving that barrier at expense of others.

>>82242606 (OP)
Yeah I was lied to my entire life by women when it comes to this stuff. I will always resent them for it. Never pay attention to what a woman says, only what she does. They're lying snakes.

>>82242762
>>82242762
>*citation needed*
>No don't give me suffragists sources.
What do you mean by "suffragists sources"? You mean any sources who support women's suffrage? That would be excluding most sources out there

Personally I found Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender" to be a good read. Its primarily science-based, just looking at the science on brains and gender (as well as how it is reported on and communicated to the public). Overall, women's brains and men's brains just aren't really all that dissimilar, and the differences that are seen can be due to differences in how people are raised vs inherent factors - but even with those factors, the idea of massively different male brains and female brains is just kind of a myth, with there being more diversity of brains within a gender vs the average between the genders. I'd suggest giving the book a read if you want to check out the science, it does a better job explaining this stuff than I can

>>82242847
>Overall, women's brains and men's brains just aren't really all that dissimilar
This is false. Respect my lived experience, lil chuddy

>>82242790
>You are the faggot that is in the other thread
I am not. It seems you may be assuming I have posted things that I have not actually posted
>>82242808
Absolutely. I still firmly believe in gender equality, even though women don't seem to like this and will look more skeptically on men who openly support equality vs men who stay silent or are casually sexist

I am in no way arguing that men should be sexist just because clearly sexist men are more able to date. Simply complaining about how frustrating it is that women will not be more consistent and reasonable with this stuff

>>82242810
>Show me female equivalent of the pic
The British feminist movement was divided, with some supporting the white feather movement as a way to prove their patriotism, and others opposing it

In the US, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the largest feminist organization there, and in 1980, in response to proposals to bring back the draft, they announced opposition to the draft (as well as war in general) while also stating opposition to excluding women from the draft if one was enacted (https://feminist.org/resources/feminist-chronicles/part-iii-the-early-documents/women-and-the-military/#iii-draft). This has often been the stance of feminists. One can look back earlier to feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who responded to charges that women shouldn't vote if they won't fight by arguing against fighting and war in general.
>That is true redpill. If you alone on on inhabited island you don't need rights. You can do whatever you want. Rights only exist when applied to others. Rights are barrier between you desires and desires of others. Getting more for you is moving that barrier at expense of others.
People can still work together to build and work for the common-wealth of all, rather than having a zero-sum, all against all approach. This is basic economics. When it comes to more rights-based approaches, in a sense one can present things as zero-sum in the idea that they restrict the ability for some people to control others and dominate them. But I don't want to control or dominate women. When it comes to romance, I fucking hate the idea that love and romance need to involve control and domination. I just want equality, and actual love. The anti-feminists and traditionalists can't give me that, they can only give privilege, power, and control, which isnt very loving

>>82242606 (OP)
Yeah water is wet and women are deceptive sluts

>>82243002
>The British feminist movement was divided, with some supporting the white feather movement as a way to prove their patriotism, and others opposing it
I am not talking about opposing it.
I am talking about sending women to die into WWI meat grinder saying it's their "duty". You are so inequality mind coded you can't comprehend this concept.

>People can still work together to build and work for the common-wealth of all,
They can do it with inequality. Entire history of humanity is cooperation of non equal.

>>82242860
"lived experience" is kind of a meme and far from the basis of this stuff
>>82243042
Nothing wrong with being slutty. It just sucks that women aren't more fair with who they are slutty with, and inclusive towards incels
>>82243066
>I am talking about sending women to die into WWI meat grinder saying it's their "duty". You are so inequality mind coded you can't comprehend this concept.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Plenty of feminists oppose sending men to die in the meat grinder of war. The existence of some who supported that doesn't mean the movement is defined solely by those who were fine with men dying in war
>They can do it with inequality. Entire history of humanity is cooperation of non equal.
Inequality mostly expanded after agriculture - most of human history was spent in the pre agricultural era, under pretty egalitarian circumstances/ We can return to that tradition and have more equality

Fundamentally I am just not superior to women, or are you, or men as a whole. Neither are they superior to us. We are equals. The trads and antifeminists are just denying the reality.

>>82243164
Pre-agricultural "egalitarianism" was women being wholly dependant on man as a provider/protector.

>>82243181
No it wasn't lmao. Women worked to provide too, stereotypically today being associated with the "gathering" side of hunter-gathering but also often being involved in the hunting side too.

The idea of women being wholely dependent on men has pretty much never actually been true

>>82243223
Oh right? How do you figure a tribe consisting of women could do on their own?

>>82243280
Fine enough apart from the whole "not being able to reproduce" thing, same as a tribe consisting of men. Its not like we are some sort of separate species or something. We are all humans

>>82242620
>omg anons were so rude to some sexhaver faggot seeking validation here
Lmfao must've been you

>>82243303
Yeah right, a tribe of women would be so vulnerable to attacks by men and beasts alike and in-fighting. Can you imagine the women you know forming a tribe and foraging in cooperation?

>>82243390
Humans tended not to fight each other much before the invention of agriculture and settled societies, so attacks wouldn't have been that big of a deal. Plus people in general were just really fucking strong in prehistoric times, I recall research suggesting the average prehistoric woman was stronger and more muscular than elite athletes of today. A tribe of hunter-gatherer women would have been pretty capable of fending off the beasts of the times
>Can you imagine the women you know forming a tribe and foraging in cooperation?
Isn't the common anti-feminist argument that women are more collectivist while men are the individualistic gender, that we need to reject the cathedral of cooperation and such?

>>82242606 (OP)
Of course they do, the "patriarchy" is religious women topping from the bottom because some of their instincts make them semi-aware of the fact of just how destructive they are.

I'm sorry to inform you that there won't be a patriarchal revival this time though and women won't ever be anything more than a commodity or a unit of labor. There are alternative forms of containment available now and especially in the near future.

>>82242629
>Remember that trannies post anti incel threads on the daily here. Most actual women either don't care
trannies are the spawn of women, they are their castrated eunuchs and activists, never took a different political stance aside from the battle of bathrooms

>>82243645
That's bull, look as this graph.
The difference between male and female genetic variety represent all the death gene lines of men that never got to reproduce or whose genetic went extinct.
They were genocided or excommunicated by the tribe.

>>82243692
>Of course they do, the "patriarchy" is religious women topping from the bottom because some of their instincts make them semi-aware of the fact of just how destructive they are.
Not exactly, but like, sort of. Ultimately patriarchy benefits chads and rich men the most, but plenty of religious/trad women try to use patriarchy and right wing shit in general to try to use the power of men to benefit whatever demographic of women they are within above other groups
>I'm sorry to inform you that there won't be a patriarchal revival this time
I don't want patriarchy, I want equality
>and women won't ever be anything more than a commodity or a unit of labor.
They can also be "people"

>>82243645
>Humans tended not to fight each other much before the invention of agriculture and settled societies
This is patently false bullshit. Societies had a hard time securing the resources they themselves produced BECUASE they weren't the nomadic civilizations that just took and bounced. Having a settlement and agriculture didn't preclude you from being ass rammed from people who wanted to take shit from you dude, sometimes it made it easier.

>>82243741
If someone couldn't read the graph women were at least twice as likely to successfully reproduce. 40 thousand to men's 20 thousand in Europe.

>>82243741
Looks like the big decline in men around 10,000 kya occurs around the same time as the Turkana massacre and the Jebel Sahaba
conflict, the earliest evidences of common violence among people. By that time, over 90% of human history had already happened

>>82243774
Cont.
So I theorize that tribes were alliances of families, weak families (of men) would be cast off.
When herding was adapted, multiple families were a burden and the one family harem system came about. Members of the family would protect the family property. There was strength in numbers and family ties would hold it together.

>>82243826
That was probably the first monoculture conquering others.

>>82243769
For most of human history, resources weren't necessarily that difficult to come by. The settlement and agriculture came about when resources started becoming more scarce, at which point it made more sense to more intensely cultivate territory. It also made it easier to defend one's territory from those who would take shit, when one is cultivating the land, and developing settlements and settled society. It also made it easier to develop enough stuff to go out and try and take shit from other settlements. Conflict could have definitely emerged before settlements were established, of course, due to scarcity, but most of human history didn't see so much scarcity to begin with, until populations reached a certain size
>>82243838
The idea that weak men were cast off doesn't seem that likely, iirc there's various evidences suggesting that people in hunter gatherer times often would take care of the injured even when they would no longer be productive, evidenced by findings of people from that time with various (badly) healed wounds who nonetheless appear to have survived to old age, or something along those lines
>>82243852
Or more broadly the spread of warfare, since by that time, humanity was so widespread that even with the advantages brought by settled society, there wasn't just one culture conquering everyone else, but rather likely just the emergence of various settled cultures conquering their close geographical neighbors around that time

>>82243884
If you were high in the social hierarchy, obviously your wounds would be tended.
I've heard that spiel all before. Explain away half the men reproducing successfully compared to women.

>>82243916
>If you were high in the social hierarchy, obviously your wounds would be tended.
I'm talking about the time before there would have been much in the way of social hierarchy
>Explain away half the men reproducing successfully compared to women.
Idk but is there evidence that the men who didn't reproduce were being killed or cast out, as opposed to just not reproducing?

>>82242606 (OP)
Obviously. Being a male feminist signals that you're a pushover and easily duped. Not attractive traits.

>>82243965
You think they were volcel? Lmao

>>82244016
Females should simply stop considering it undesirable for males to support equality and feminism
>>82244056
I think one would need some strong evidence of widespread violence and ostracism to suggest they didn't breed because they were killed or driven out

>>82244461
Like what kind of evidence? The skeletons found 10 000 years ago were only found because the male deaths were so numerous at the time.
It's more likely that the men that didn't reproduce met a violent or sad end. Violence between tribes, violence within tribes and excommunication.

>>82243764
>They can also be "people"
Nope, women themselves worked about 200 years to manufacture consent for the opposite opinion to be palatable. In their solipsism they actually believed that it was all about them.
Do I need to spell it out any more clearly, or do you get it?

>>82245055
Women are people whether you accept it or not, whether women act like humans or not, even. Whether they try to reject their humanity or not, they are people. Equality is good.

>>82242606 (OP)
Consistently going on dates means misogynists can't maintain or get a long-term relationship. Getting a date means nearly nothing. That said, I will continue not giving men who hate me for being a girl a chance lol