Women do not secure territory, they do not farm, they do not build. There is not one single building block of civilization that is given to us by women.
If you were to remove all women from the face of the earth and replace them with artificial wombs, civilization would continue uninterrupted. Homemaking would become the work of 12 year old boys, and twinky faggots.
Repeat this experiment in a world with only women and artificial fertilization, and a complete societal collapse will begin within a matter of months. Power stations will go offline, water will cease to be pumped, sewers will clog, fields will go unplowed, resources will go unmined, billions will starve.
Most Imp1 takes are retarded, but there's some truth to this. Human history spans back at a bare minimum 3,000 years and likely more, with hundreds and hundreds of micro tribes and clans that fought and clawed and grinded for stability and success. And across all of recorded human history, there's maybe 4 places where women even had an accessory advisor role in the running of the area, and all of those are remote areas that immediately got ran over the second anyone tried prodding the place. You'd think, by rule of averages if all things were equal, there would be a handful of city states in Europe or Asia, renown for being women lead, that contributed to the wider nation if not a various Balkan or American nation where ladies were the dominant political force.
The most relevant was some African micro nation that bought European guns to enslave a few neighbors, before the French got tired of em and ran the forces down 100:1 with bayonets.
I think that it's fundamentally the nature of femininity as women pair-bond and compartmentalize themselves into maximized feminine form.
My argument is that when humans pair-bond they compartmentalize to their most masculine and feminine forms. In so doing, women maximize their femininity towards aesthetic and social navigation; where men maximize their masculinity towards agency and social hierarchy. Maximized agency requires long term time preference so that you can fulfil your potential agency into some action. However, aesthetics always exist in the moment and emphasize short-time preference.
A feminine society is utterly incapable of civilizational development because it never has the long-term time preference, and efficient use of agency, to build a complex and interwoven society. A woman can navigate that society, maybe even partly maintain it from a social ordering, but a woman can't create it from scratch.
However, women are kind of a glue for a civilization. Men will keep building new things with their agency, but will stop once they've solved some problem. Women tend to promote men to keep building with their agency to fulfill an aesthetic narrative, and foster a social order.
Men are like cutting wooden boards into pieces and shapes, but women are like glue. To build a civilization, (like a bird house), you'll need both. If you just have men (the wood), it will be a temporary structure. But if you just have women, you'll just have pile of glue.
I know they couldn't have, but I wish they left it alone, and allowed the men to build a functional civilization from scratch, while the women came begging again and again, increasingly desperate, until finally they offer the men something serious enough to earn themselves a position living off the largesse of the more successful group.
Then, for the next season, they did it again. And again. And again. Until the entire viewing audience was re/de-programmed to reject the globohomo narrative about women and equality.
You know women are easily persuaded when the establishment got them to actively fight for the right to do shitty jobs they hate for years on end until they no longer are capable of having kids and nobody wants to make them with them.
Homemaking would become the work of 12 year old boys, and twinky faggots.
I'm going to veto that last one, thanks.
Repeat this experiment in a world with only women and artificial fertilization, and a complete societal collapse will begin within a matter of months...
Months is probably extremely generous, in fact. A lot of things break down almost immediately with no maintenance. Also, you missed a big one; delivery. There are some female truckers and the like, but nowhere near enough to keep things running. Cities run out of food real quick, and there's also a bigger demand on utilities so...basically cities turn into (even more of) dystopia hellscapes practically as soon as men are out of the picture.
We have yet to see a successful all female company let alone a successful female led country/civilization. If women are so necessary let’s repeal the civil rights act so we can let women really flourish!
I’d be shocked if he actually gets a day of jail time. He’s probably going to be a regular “contributor” to cable news tv shows and giving paid speeches within a couple of years.
Devil's advocate : successful woman led company - AMD?
Sure. And you could use Margaret Thatcher as an example of an effective female world leader. Doesn't mean she was a good leader, just that she was capable of leading (because she acted like a man).
It's not impossible for women to act like this, but it is rare for them to actually reach a leadership position.
Let's be real, if women didn't have vaginas, they'd be second class citizens. Look at any industry where women and gay men compete. The gay men totally dominate the women, and the women are happy to let it happen.
The overwhelming number of crypto millionaires - and crypto bankruptcies - being men is a consequence of men taking that leap of faith. Women aren't thought leaders in that industry, they're following the men who were.
The dude is a crypto financier. You know right out the gate he lies 98% of the time, and is just planning on his exit so that he doesn't go in chains like Bankman-Fried (who, by the way, he put there).
He's just saying what he needs to say to get on the public's good side so he can quietly exit. He learned Bankman's lessons.
Women are literally incapable of civilization.
Women do not secure territory, they do not farm, they do not build. There is not one single building block of civilization that is given to us by women.
If you were to remove all women from the face of the earth and replace them with artificial wombs, civilization would continue uninterrupted. Homemaking would become the work of 12 year old boys, and twinky faggots.
Repeat this experiment in a world with only women and artificial fertilization, and a complete societal collapse will begin within a matter of months. Power stations will go offline, water will cease to be pumped, sewers will clog, fields will go unplowed, resources will go unmined, billions will starve.
Most Imp1 takes are retarded, but there's some truth to this. Human history spans back at a bare minimum 3,000 years and likely more, with hundreds and hundreds of micro tribes and clans that fought and clawed and grinded for stability and success. And across all of recorded human history, there's maybe 4 places where women even had an accessory advisor role in the running of the area, and all of those are remote areas that immediately got ran over the second anyone tried prodding the place. You'd think, by rule of averages if all things were equal, there would be a handful of city states in Europe or Asia, renown for being women lead, that contributed to the wider nation if not a various Balkan or American nation where ladies were the dominant political force.
The most relevant was some African micro nation that bought European guns to enslave a few neighbors, before the French got tired of em and ran the forces down 100:1 with bayonets.
I think that it's fundamentally the nature of femininity as women pair-bond and compartmentalize themselves into maximized feminine form.
My argument is that when humans pair-bond they compartmentalize to their most masculine and feminine forms. In so doing, women maximize their femininity towards aesthetic and social navigation; where men maximize their masculinity towards agency and social hierarchy. Maximized agency requires long term time preference so that you can fulfil your potential agency into some action. However, aesthetics always exist in the moment and emphasize short-time preference.
A feminine society is utterly incapable of civilizational development because it never has the long-term time preference, and efficient use of agency, to build a complex and interwoven society. A woman can navigate that society, maybe even partly maintain it from a social ordering, but a woman can't create it from scratch.
However, women are kind of a glue for a civilization. Men will keep building new things with their agency, but will stop once they've solved some problem. Women tend to promote men to keep building with their agency to fulfill an aesthetic narrative, and foster a social order.
Men are like cutting wooden boards into pieces and shapes, but women are like glue. To build a civilization, (like a bird house), you'll need both. If you just have men (the wood), it will be a temporary structure. But if you just have women, you'll just have pile of glue.
Never forgot that time when a survival show separated men and women on an island. The results are basically what you expect.
I know they couldn't have, but I wish they left it alone, and allowed the men to build a functional civilization from scratch, while the women came begging again and again, increasingly desperate, until finally they offer the men something serious enough to earn themselves a position living off the largesse of the more successful group.
Then, for the next season, they did it again. And again. And again. Until the entire viewing audience was re/de-programmed to reject the globohomo narrative about women and equality.
You know women are easily persuaded when the establishment got them to actively fight for the right to do shitty jobs they hate for years on end until they no longer are capable of having kids and nobody wants to make them with them.
I'm going to veto that last one, thanks.
Months is probably extremely generous, in fact. A lot of things break down almost immediately with no maintenance. Also, you missed a big one; delivery. There are some female truckers and the like, but nowhere near enough to keep things running. Cities run out of food real quick, and there's also a bigger demand on utilities so...basically cities turn into (even more of) dystopia hellscapes practically as soon as men are out of the picture.
We have yet to see a successful all female company let alone a successful female led country/civilization. If women are so necessary let’s repeal the civil rights act so we can let women really flourish!
SBF is not in jail though, didn’t have to actually post bail, and is clearly going to get off with nothing or a slap on the wrist.
I’d be shocked if he actually gets a day of jail time. He’s probably going to be a regular “contributor” to cable news tv shows and giving paid speeches within a couple of years.
Sure. And you could use Margaret Thatcher as an example of an effective female world leader. Doesn't mean she was a good leader, just that she was capable of leading (because she acted like a man).
It's not impossible for women to act like this, but it is rare for them to actually reach a leadership position.
Anyone who virtue signals like this is probably stealing from their customers. See: FTX.
Let's be real, if women didn't have vaginas, they'd be second class citizens. Look at any industry where women and gay men compete. The gay men totally dominate the women, and the women are happy to let it happen.
Spreading your legs doesn't count
They should watch the survivor series where they put women and men on separate ends of an island with the same resources.
Spoiler alert: You see why it's called "the worlds oldest profession" when the food gets low and it starts raining non-stop.
The overwhelming number of crypto millionaires - and crypto bankruptcies - being men is a consequence of men taking that leap of faith. Women aren't thought leaders in that industry, they're following the men who were.
The American people are tired of women.
"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
Camille Paglia
I'd rather eat higher fees on a different chain than give this retard money. Thanks for posting.
"You fuckers still use binance? HA!" is my standard response to any binance shill.
Also lol their whale event in Dubai when those retarded fucks banned the good cryptos. Bunch of morons getting bilked by scammers.
True enough, I guess. We'd all still be ageless in Eden, without women...* All one of us. Named Red.
* God seemed to think that stasis was a bad idea; then he went and paid more than a rib himself, for it all...
The dude is a crypto financier. You know right out the gate he lies 98% of the time, and is just planning on his exit so that he doesn't go in chains like Bankman-Fried (who, by the way, he put there).
He's just saying what he needs to say to get on the public's good side so he can quietly exit. He learned Bankman's lessons.