Damn, that's deep
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Women do need to shit test men. The problems are:
If women had better social structures to rely on, including even traditional institutions that guided male conduct, they wouldn't need to shit test men. Instead, they have almost nothing to rely on in the way of social, family, or institutional structures or traditions, so they end up having to shit test them to be secure.
It would be a lot easier for a woman to know whether or not she could trust her man if he was required to operate under some sort of perpetual ethic in how he was to treat all women, all lovers, and all wives, in that order. Some kind of... chivalrous required conduct. Where if a man was not prepared to address a woman as "my lady", or was not prepared to hold her hand in a respectful way in greeting, he would have already failed the shit test.
But God is dead and it is we who have killed him, so you get to build these systems all on your own.
This is what you're talking about with "female culture". That's not really a thing. You're basically talking about mainstream feminist identitarian culture, which is drilled into all young women as the sole correct interpretation of the universe. Which is why they are repeating feminist tripe ("I like soft sensitive men"), while their actions are in stark contradiction to that ("Why do I keep fucking Trump supporters?!!")
I was actually gonna say. Both sexes need some masculine and feminine values in order to even relate to the other gender. Exclusive masculine males and exclusive feminine females are nearly incompatible with each other because they have no reference point of which to interact with the opposite sex.
No they don't. They might need to test men. But they don't need to shit test men. A shit test is basically testing if a man will refuse to be emotionally manipulated by her. While men should be resistant to emotional manipulation, they shouldn't have to tolerate their wives constantly trying to emotionally manipulate them as a test of "manliness".
The rest of your comment is gynocentric tradcon "poor milady" trash. Both men and women need to have standards of behaviour. Yet, the tradcon view is that it's all on the man to act like an adult, while the woman can do whatever she wants and the man just needs to put up with it. Of course, traditional societies did actually have standards of behaviour expected of women, yet talking about these is taboo in the gynocentric thinking being pushed by both feminists and "traditionalists" (the only such standard so-called "traditionalists" seem to care about is sexual propriety, yet that was only one of many expected standards of behaviour of women).
As I said, things will only get better when men stand up and are willing to say "no" to crappy women.
Okay, I accept your definition because I was using it differently than you.
I don't know where you are getting that. I've repeatedly said the thing that no gynocentrist perspective will ever accept: "women's responsibility".
I don't disagree, but the problem here is that men have to be the ones to take the initiative and solve this problem. I've said this before, but women's agreeableness, and even desire to be dominated, effectively means that the only way any of this gets solved is with men becoming more masculine and effectively "taming the shrew" of western degenerated society, and manufacturing a civilization atop the fallen one.
I didn't say women don't have a responsibility here. And frankly, your dismissal of my points on women's problems is ludicrous because their problems are quite severe, and effectively unsolvable without men.