Japan VS Europe
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
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 confusing the world as it is today for what it would/should normally be without all the subversion and fuckery.
The only reason we're seeing idiots propagate more than the intelligent is because of the various fuckery forces at play upon society, because as I briefly mentioned, society is fucking fucked. Almost every hard won tradition and philosophical foundation has been inverted. Idiots don't care about resource accrual, especially with all the welfare programs enabling people like that to survive, despite their idiocy, enabling them to just fuck and make kids. The intelligent are pushed into college and careers, men and women, which takes a lot of time away from finding a mate and making a family, thus reducing the number of kids they have. Welfare is a dysgenics program, taking resources away from the intelligent and giving them to the stupid, making it harder for the former to have kids, and easier for the latter.
Men that are better at prioritizing truth, logic, and reason are better able to fulfill their role as protector and provider. Most people don't see this because they're looking at things how they are, not what it took to get here and understand why. In the past, mother nature would kill off the horrifically stupid (lets go pet that hungry looking bear, lets not store food for winter, lets go jump off that cliff it looks fun, I don't know how to hunt, now I'm starving), meaning only the intelligent would pass on their genetics, improving the stock of the tribe, and molding the species over time. This also highlights another problem with modern society, which coddles people too much, becoming too far removed from nature, insulating the idiots from the necessary consequences of their mistakes, weakening all of us over time.
Men that are smarter are better able to accrue resources, farming, hunting, planning ahead, storing food for winter, learning what is healthy versus poisonous, what plant can be used for what, what animals can be hunted where, and how, and when, and so on ad infinitum. The more resources a man can gather, the better a provider he can be, and the better he'll be able to attract and keep a mate, and raise a family. This also affects the tribes/communities we're a part of. If a tribe is made up of idiots, the tribe will fail/die, or will be defeated/enslaved/killed/etc. by a tribe that's stronger, usually meaning they're smarter (in larger scales this becomes more muddied by other factors).
Women seek out men that are bigger and stronger, because it means they'll be a better protector. Women also seek out men that are good at accruing resources, because it means they'll be a better provider. In modern times, this plays out as women seeking a man that makes more money than them. This is confirmed by modern dating stats, even in the hell 2.0 society we're currently living in.
Society was never meritocratic, was never this place of free competition where the smart did well and the stupid perished.
Group intelligence was likely selected for, except for in places where survival was easy - but this has more to do with geniuses, which different groups valued / protected / allowed for to various degrees, and utilizing people where they're most effective - than it has to do with a game where the intelligent win.
Intelligence was likely only a small part of selective pressure. Though not insignificant, as we can observe in significant differences between groups, but also not the pillar that you seem to imply that it was.
Even 10,000 years ago, and even if you were born in a rational tribe not lorded over and used for personal gain by a sadist, you'd be given your role based on the needs of the tribe, not your abilities - and that tribe would have a leader who's attributes were strenght (ability to sieze and hold power) and empathy (ability to effectively organize his tribe and to predict and diffuse threats), not intelligence. Or not nessecarily intelligence, I don't dispute that intelligence is always useful no matter what.
Does that mean that a tribe doing things intelligently wasn't an advantage? No it means that there were only limited ways to act as a tribe, and group intelligence was coded in the traditions and ways of the tribe. The tribe wasn't dependent on a steady supply of smart people to function well.
And the women of that tribe would mate based on the tribes customs whatever they were.
The individual was never the provider - in the grander scheme of things. The tribe was always the provider.
Same in agrarian societies - selection was more about family, empathy, and strenght (or good looks).
Same in industrial societies. Though here smarts probably started playing a larger role. But still arranged marriages were common, as was marrying whomever was nearest, or was the most economically or politically beneficial for the family to hitch you up with.
The idea of the selfmade man who rises to the top because he's smarter is a modern construction. Even then, success is about risk taking. It doens't matter how smart you are when the path to victory is through taking bets that the majority lose or break even on (or win but not enough to really matter). Wheather on the stock market, or on a trade ship across the atlantic, or as a farmer, or as a restauranteur, or as a soldier.
Of course you're right that regardless of attributes and abilities, the man was expected to provide and protect, and that wealth was always a strong advantage. But this wealth almost always came from family (with some origin years/decades/centuries ago in luck or conquest), and not in entrepreneurial initiative.
are you a LITERAL incel? not even a joke one, a literal incel?
Every single career criminal highlighted by BLM as their martyr had a family.
Your worthless insults don't mean shit.
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.
You are wrong. Yes, women prefer men who are big and strong, and yes, women prefer men with more resources. But women do not care about how have you acquired those resources. Whether you got them through your intelligence, hard work, inheritance or stole from another, it does not matter to women.
I didn't say women cared how the resources were accrued, and that doesn't negate what I said. I'm not wrong, but you're free to think whatever you want.
If you understood Kant's categorical imperative (act such that you wish that action becomes universal maxim, meaning everyone acts that way) and applied it society wide, it would show you what is moral and what works (meaning society is improved or remains stable), and what is immoral and doesn't work (meaning it hurts society as a whole). Society can't exist if all men gain their resources by stealing it from others. There's a reason why people have come up with moral codes, religious or not, to prevent societal decay. It appears you're trying to disprove what is moral, righteous, true, and logical by pointing out that some people have succeeded by not being those things, which is a logically fallacious argument.