Isnt it funny how these types of anti natalist and anti family articles always show Whites?
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Women will start treating men like human beings, or the birth rate will be extremely low because they never will.
OK, so extinction. That is your plan? So as the Impy-'civilizations' will disappear, the future belongs to pro-natalist countries. Great job, genius.
While Imp's views are extreme, he does have a point - a lot of problems in society are due to simps and cucks who can't say 'no' to women because they worship women. The view you're promoting is not effectively any different - "we can't say 'no' to women because that will mean there are no more babies!".
The reality, of course, is that women, in general, have at least as much of a drive to have babies as men do. Men need to be willing to stand up and say 'no' when the deal is bad, because that's the only way to make women offer a different deal. Yet your view promotes the opposite, all the while we have articles like the OP telling women that "they don't need to have children or get married". What this leads to is (1) women being willing to say 'no' to men (even if they would be better off not saying 'no') (2) men not being willing to say 'no' to women (even if they would be better off saying 'no') and (3) a shit show when men are treated terribly, women are treated like angels, and society collapses because all the children are raised in broken families.
The problem is failure to understand that women don't actually have agency.
They don't whore around and abandon families because they want to, they do it because they've been told to, and don't have the ability to resist.
Women who "make good choices" all have positive influences telling them to make those choices. If they don't, they listen to the TV, magazines, influencers, etc.
You can blame women all you want, but the reality is that men tolerated feminism, which ultimately posits that women can "choose for themselves". Everything else follows from there.
You dont want to end up like Korea either .Korea has both extreme feminist and very strong men's right activist groups and both groups shunning the opposite sex to the point that they have the lowest birth rate in the world now.
So, expecting women to treat us like human beings is extinction? That doesn't say a lot for their societal value.
You're basically saying they aren't capable of basic human decency and would choose extinction of the species over it.
We have over a century of them riding their raw hedonism into levels of depression and suffering our ancestors couldn't even fathom, and millennia of literature showing that none of that is new.
What kind of retard thinks women won't sink with the short term pleasure ship before they ever admit to being wrong or sacrifice anything?
I've long said that the statistics on their depression are as fake as their leaders are sadistic. The suicide rates don't match the claims.
You have issues. I never accepted your retarded frame. I just pointed out that even you accepted that your ideas would result in extinction.
Well, that depends on their willingness to discard a broken system that only favors them. I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Exactly, any more than a computer program is.
If they are told to act decently, they will. If the sum influence of their perception of "society" and their peer group says otherwise, they will act monstrously. You can see this in how eating disorders, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and many other mental illnesses manifest in women; it transmits through their peer group in a way that doesn't have a parallel in men. I think this is because they are actually unable to make their own decisions, and expecting them to is actually quite cruel.
I can't think of a single example of a woman who contradicts this. Even a contrarian woman like Rosa Parks was backed by an organized civil rights group. OTOH, there are many examples, both personally and historically, of men going against societal consensus and being eventually validated.
For many women, their positive influence is a father or husband. Single women tend to behave badly because they have no conscience, and no external force (like a religious group) keeping them in line. Then they create social circles full of other women which creates a feedback loop.
I'm not saying this to defend or excuse their actions, but to point out the meaninglessness of the idea of them "choosing" to preserve the species.
The famous examples of women who did things that society feels are important enough to write their feats into the historical record would - for women - probably more likely be those who did something with the help of a support network that encouraged them. Maybe a better example is women who just didn't fit their sex stereotype at the time, like Mary Shelley. I know women who don't exhibit that hivemind lunacy you speak of, but it's because they act more like men and don't have many female friends in the first place.
Still even if there are outliers that don't fit the mold, it doesn't mean we shouldn't base social norms on what's best for the majority. Western culture has a problem of allowing small minorities to have undue voice and influence.
Unfathomably based.
Then it's settled.