Japan VS Europe
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
I might have missed something that would have spurred on your comment.
Since when is pointing out women's role in the destruction of men, families, religion, work, government, social media, dating, marriage, and society suddenly make the observer turn into a straw man advocating for a false dichotomy of "Handmaid's Tale or actual genuine extinction"? There is a huge middle ground between those 2 options, and a lot of other options not between them that at the very least could help stymie the blood gushing wound to civilization that feminism has caused.
His extremism isn't realistic. That's why people attack at him.
Women exist, they will always exist, and will always be necessary for existence to continue. Unless we are willing to render them breeding slaves with zero deviation, we will end up having to compromise with them on some parts.
I'm a misogynist the same as him, but he makes the "undoing feminism" movement harder by advocating a position so far off the side that nobody could want it but him. Its not that his reasoning and foundation is wrong, its where he takes it that it is.
What extremism? Has he made other comments beyond what started this thread?
He is on almost every thread on this .win talking about women and feminism and his extreme views on them. Its actually almost a running gag how he can turn any random topic into somehow being caused by the feminist overlords who run society.
Compromise on what?
"How about you only kill 10% of us, is that okay? And we'll let you keep psychologically abusing kids to turn them into perfect simps to milk for cash."
What possible compromise can you have with people who wish to see a totalitarian world with their biological trait making them a permanent upper caste?
The only way forward I see is to treat feminism exactly like Nazism was treated after the Second World War.
You treat feminism as another word for woman, not as an ideology seperate. The same way the Left treats "white" as another word for Nazi, or racist, or whatever. You even said it just now when you blamed their biology for it, meaning there is no innocence among any of them.
As such, you don't rail against feminists you want to stomp all women into mud and dirt.
Here's the thing. I don't disagree with you. But, I said it already:
Your mindset will accomplish nothing because nobody else will ever agree with it. Women will need to exist or we will go extinct. Men are empathetic creatures, so we will never enslave them into birthing machines. Men will always want sex, so women will always have a leg up on us.
The compromise isn't on what they deserve you screaming loon. Its do I want to accomplish anything or scream into the wind forever because nobody will ever see my side.
I spent most of my undergrad drumming up support and studies for helping men with therapy, which is a real problem because its designed almost entirely for women (one reason why male suicide is such a problem is there is ZERO help that matters). I recieved pushback constantly from women, but I still managed to convince a lot of people and even a professor was inspired to do their own studies. That minor step of compromised working with them probably did more for helping men than 40000 words of your essays on it.
Fair point, although demographic studies reinforce this idea. Today's young women being the major voting demographic in 10-20 years will create a permanent matriarchy. As such, I feel like the "good woman" argument is a simple distraction that doesn't serve any purpose other than delaying the realization of how deep in shit we are.
I don't believe all women are bad. You can have a biological impulse to be a bad person and control it. It's just that I feel it's a stupid argument to say "not all women" when you can point to 700 different examples of women who seized power then revealed their true colors.
You underestimate how far they will take things. They're already robbing us blind of the bailout money, and they don't even fully have control yet. When Harris is President, the escalation will likely be dramatic.
Who says that's what I want? We have technology for everything in the world. Why can't someone create literal birthing machines under the guise that gays need them?
There's got to be something that would work, it's not either Handmaiden's Tale or SCUM Manifesto.
I wouldn't use them but at least the tradcucks wouldn't have an argument for retaining female privilege anymore.
That's very admirable. I'm sure you made the world a better place by doing that :) (smiley face to show I wasn't being condescending or sarcastic.)
Hang on, what compromise? They pushed back so you just convinced others who were more likely to help...at least that's how it reads to me. Can you explain where the compromise was?
I wouldn't doubt it. I've tried to help though, I don't just post endless rants.
first off i've seen theimpossible1 for a while now, he's not smart enough to know like half the words you just said.
second off, if all that can be neatly attributed to women... could they not be attributed to men, too? men, too, destroy families, religion, work, government, social media, dating, marriage and society.
the blame, if analyzed, is a neat 50/50.
would that not then signify the issue is not really gender-based, but rather some other force acting on both equally yet manifesting differently? from the modern whoring of women today, yes, you as a man suffer, but do you think they, as forever unfulfilled women, do not also suffer?
i'm not saying "oh my god Stacy's life is so hard" don't take me for a retard simp, please, don't insult my intelligence. no, i mean that on a technical level, if the goal is fulfillment (biological and otherwise) for both genders, then both genders are currently suffering equally, which indicates the presence of a gender-neutral force rather than blaming either men or women specifically. to get hung up on whores and feminism today is to see the symptom but not the cause, the trees but not the forest, etc.
if you just keep blaming half the world population without trying to look past and see the real issue, you will just end up a schizoid like theimpossible1, because there's no way in fuck you'll get anything useful out of that.
Yes, there were/are absolutely outside forces pushing feminism (I'm sure most here know), but women embraced it, to the continued destruction of all I mentioned. Sure, some men destroy stuff, but I'm talking about wholesale fuckery that goes far beyond incidental stuff. Men can be blamed for certain widespread behaviors that are destroying society, like rampant porn and gaming addictions, but to a lesser degree than what women have done. We have completely upended our traditions and society to cater to women being put into positions they should never have, and it's destroying everything. I'm not saying this because I hate women or think them inferior. I'm saying it because men and women are biologically different, physically and mentally, and fulfill different roles. This gets into evolutionary biology and philosophy, but it shows how things should be set up, and why things turn to shit when we stray from it.
Specialization of roles between the sexes increases efficiency of the species. Men fulfill the role of protector and provider, doing the dangerous tasks, wandering further from home, and men evolved to do it better than women. Men are bigger, stronger, and most importantly, prioritize truth, logic, and reason. Men that are better at divining truth via logic and reason, are better able to attract a mate, fulfill their role, pass on their genetics, and increase the survivability of themselves, their family, and their tribe. Women fulfill the role of procreator, homemaker, and care giver, doing the less dangerous tasks, staying close to home, and women evolved to do it better than men. Women are cable of bearing children, feeding them, and most importantly, prioritize life, emotion, and empathy. Women that are better able to prioritize such things are better able to attract a mate, fulfill their role, pass on their genetics, and increase the survivability of themselves, their family, and their tribe.
The two core priorities of men and women, truth and life, aren't equal. One must hold apex over the other, and hopefully most here can figure out that truth must hold priority over life. When you prioritize life over truth, the first casualty is truth, and inevitably the 2nd is life. This error has repeated throughout history in individuals and groups (regardless of size), and every time it's been done it's been destructive. Furthermore, just as truth must hold priority over life, so must those that prioritize truth hold position over those that prioritize life. This is why every stable family, community, and society is patriarchal, and whenever it embraces the feminine over the masculine, it begins to decay, leading to sure destruction. This does not mean women are inferior to men, but simply that they prioritize and specialize different things than men, and can do those things better than men.
If you can extrapolate this at all, you should be able to figure out why a great many things occur in society. Further, if you're unfamiliar with the men's rights movement, look up some of their members and what they're saying. It will show a lot of the effects of upending what I mentioned above.
Are you in for a surprise.
It's pretty much the opposite. You're more likely to see a career criminal have a partner than someone of actual value.
You're wrong. You didn't fully think through what I said. I tried to be as terse as possible given the scale of the topics being discussed, hoping that those reading it could figure out the rest and make the necessary connections.
Men that are better able at divining truth, better able to use logic and reason, are better able to fulfill their role as provider and protector, meaning they're able to accrue more resources, via hunting, farming, avoiding threats, planning ahead for winter, etc. This is proven over and over, even in the modern dating world. Women prefer men that are big and strong, so they can protect them. Women also prefer men that make more money than them, so they can provide for them.
This is also why pushing women into the workforce and competing with men for jobs is a huge mistake, because it uses women's evolutionary biology and separation of roles against both sexes, to the benefit of those who wish to control us. The more money women make the smaller their dating pool, and the more women that are working the fewer men that can attract a mate. It also, essentially, doubles the workforce without doubling the number of jobs, thereby decreasing everyone's wages, where now 2 people need to work to earn the same income as 1 did before. This is one of the reasons why dads back in the 50s could work 1 job and support the entire family, whereas now both parents need to work to do the same thing. It also gives benefit to our enemy, because it provides them with extra labor, while making everyone easier to control, because it destroys the family and social cohesion, by all mentioned above, and the effects of it, like forcing men to compete with women for work, when men are hardwired to protect women, not fight them. Another example, is that with both parents working, means the kids are being taught by outside/insidious forces, thus making them easier to control.
Okay, now I know you're a shill. Fuck off.