18 comments on a thread about what gyp marriage is and I was hoping there would be some decent MGTOW discussion. Nope, it's just Imp and Antonio going at it again.
Marriage is always valuable, but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family; the state is an abomination that is destroying families. The decades of conservatives in family court have done nothing, and never will, because you can't legislate morality. People either embrace morality, or they don't. If you try to legislate it, you get Leftist subversion which uses that rationalization to push their agenda.
However, non-state-sanctioned marriage, let us call this "pair bonding" is wildly useful. When done PROPERLY, it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family. A woman's needs can be maximized with femininity by being his animus, and helping to render aesthetics into his world which do all of that rejuvenation, and it helps him navigate social environments to foster a community, protect his social status, and create not only a family with children; but a large family (with grand-children and a clan).
In the immediate moment, you cut expenses, maximize his agency, while the wife keeps him constantly pushing the limits of his responsibility and agency. Allowing him to be happier and more fulfilled.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
Now, the state's intrusion into families has only hurt them so far. What this means is that men and women will need to basically force the culture to change in local communities one family unit at a time. This, unfortunately, means that men will have to be at their strongest and most selective. Men's agency means that women will actually be more willing to adapt themselves to men's needs... but that means he has to be already: very dominant, very mature, very stoic, and very independent. Literally: strong men create good times. What we have now are not just weak men, but 3-5 generations of weak men, so that men barely know what masculinity is (let alone stoicism), and even their parents can't tell them. So, there's no chance any woman will know beyond her own emotional responses that are ingrained in her psyche.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework. The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own. No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit. Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol. Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful. Eventually, she will become a resentment-mongering relationship suicide bomber that you are training to detonate on the rest of us.
Stop that right now.
Yes, women can drag you to court, but that's kind of the point: you're never going to chose a woman who would consider it. Women can't lower their standards. They have a biologically imperative to marry up. And because of institutional narcissism, they want to marry way up. What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor. You have to demonstrate yourself as literally that. The strong, dominant, wealthy, hero that is going to pull this 4 out of the feminist oubliette of insecurity and competition; an into a literal patriarchy, where she will already willingly choose to be submissive because she clearly fucking lucked out. If she's willing to improve herself with the security and stability that you provide, then she's the one you've got to go with. I'm not saying whores or broken people, but women who are low status who knows that her greatest break in her life isn't her career, but is her husband that her whole friend group is furiously jealous of. The more upset her friends are that you won't date them, and they don't see what you see in her, the better.
Blah blah.... my opinion...blah...women good...blah... men bad...blah... go get married.
FFS. Just. Please stop.
In the immediate moment, you cut expenses, maximize his agency, while the wife keeps him constantly pushing the limits of his responsibility and agency. Allowing him to be happier and more fulfilled.
WHAAAT!
maximize his agency.
Where the hell did you find this nugget? Which sociology professor told you this steaming pill of hogwash. I am going to need to see proof of this. Source right now or your whole thread is suspect.
This is perhaps the most ignorant crap I have read here all week. Look sweetie, I know feminism is now telling you marriage is good. But for over half a century it has been telling women that marriage is slavery. Men get it now. They have adjusted and it is backfiring on women, so now the narrative is changing - but this transition away from marriage has just begun. The negative effects of feminism will last well into the next century. Such is the power of religion.
Also, Western Civilization is imperialist, racist, homophobic and all the other isms you people have claimed it is for decades. White men in particular have heard you on that too - and they are no longer feeding that system.
Also, Western Civilization is imperialist, racist, homophobic and all the other isms you people have claimed it is for decades. White men in particular have heard you on that too - and they are no longer feeding that system.
Shut the fuck up you retard, I've been here longer than you, and have been arguing against feminism longer than you. These are fucking reactionary positions at this point because Sociology professors teach the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Plenty of them have this crazy idea that restrictions on sex and breeding rights were invented by Capitalism.
And you are the one crying like a Leftist by saying "SOURCE????!!!"
The source is that it is the point of pair-bonding. Why is a woman supposed to cook and clean in a relationship? Because that way a man doesn't have to. He can work longer hours, harder, because he doesn't have to do the chores or cook for himself. In fact, that's actually the primary reason homosapiens invented cooking at all. Cooking food makes digestion of food extremely easy. Gorillas have giant pot-bellies because they actually need a vast amount of space and time to digest food for hours and hours. Meanwhile, humans can cook food, dramatically cut down on the time it takes for digestion, and can literally energize themselves faster as a species because of this. When you combine this with the fact that we are an endurance predator that has to literally run our prey to exhaustion, it means that every second saved counts. Women cooking food, cuts down on the workload and time that a man has to sacrifice to maintain himself. She will never run as fast or as far as him, is less resistant to damage, and is less resistant to psychological stress. That means he is monopolizing the agency of the pair-bond since he can make the most of it. She sacrifices her agency and has to take a rejuvenation roll to keep him hunting, fighting, or otherwise working.
Don't come at me with your stupid scripted response. There's no feminists here.
Well, you certainly do a good job of spewing their talking points.
Women maximize men's agency. REALLY?
Do you have any idea how utterly wrong this is - at every possible level. I can't even think of one way this make sense outside of some super passive dude who is miserable in his relationship with a boss bitch.
Also, you do know that name calling is a huge red flag when some teenager cannot back up their points with something reasonable. Right?
Have a good day bro. You are fighting your fight so don't give up.
But I guarantee you one thing with nearly 100% certainty - you WILL see this differently in the future.
How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family;
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
immediate moment, you cut expenses.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
I'm not going to quote-reply you because it gets too messy, so just recognize your specific comments when I get to them. Marriage, as to say: pair-bonding, is always beneficial unless you are tying yourself to someone who is actually damaging or dangerous. Most of the time, even a loveless marriage actually still benefits both parties and particularly the children, if those parties were to actually do what I said and not entirely sabotage the relationship.
Woman's nature is not the nature of the state. Feminism pushed these changes because Leftists balkanized people and applied a Marxist dialectic, which they've been doing forever. Women's nature is to seek protection. Cucking men, caused women to reach out to the government, which is why the government embraces feminism as a mechanism of control.
Yes, rejuvenation is the point. That's what a good wife is actually going to do. A healthy relationship means you actually enjoy your woman and she can inspire her man. No, a dishwasher or a microwave does not replace anyone. This is actually a classic Left-wing economics mistake. Capital investment doesn't remove labor, it makes labor more efficient, which then requires less of that labor so the people working can do other things. No microwave can beat a woman cooking a healthy meal for her husband. A vacuum doesn't mean that a man doesn't have to clean the house, just that he can clean it faster. A woman with a vacuum means she can clean it at the same speed, but he doesn't have to do it at all, saving him significant time.
Evolutionary biology shows that Homo Sapiens are polyamorous, not polygamous. Pair bonding has always existed in every civilization, and in non-civilizations. Where hypergamy has existed, it was the result of authoritarian power structures. Harems are not the norm. Women aren't like birds which are biologically driven to not find another mate even after their mate's death; but that's not the same as being incapable of loyalty.
Yes, we do have to pull women's protections too, that's actually an essential feature. If women can be protected by the state, the state can give them a short-sighted offer to join the pharaoh's harem, but it will leave both men and women unhappy while fostering an authoritarian society.
You're removing men's agency when you're claiming that your "body pumps you with enough chemicals". My exact point is that modern men are wildly undisciplined. It's not impossible to resist some basic urges with discipline and stoicism. Men need to square themselves away, not get into any relationships, and only when they have the discipline and dominance for it, get into one relationship. Until then, buy a fleshlight or some shit. That's why feminists get really mad about sex bots. The "modern women" phenomenon is making it clear that a lot of these propagandized women don't have anything else to offer than what the sex bot does. Except they have worse personalities. As a stripper I talked to once said, "men don't typically objectify women, instead they personify objects as women." The fact that waifus are displacing women is not from a man's need for sex, but a man's need for a relationship, which they have a selection pressure over, but typically don't know.
I haven't misdiagnosed the problem. I'm actually saying that the solution is for men to work around it. Women aren't going to change because women operate in the aesthetic. Women change for men who can secure them. Of all of the former Leftist women I've spoken to, it was universally something like: "as soon as I got my boyfriend, I stopped hanging out with feminists. They seemed kinda crazy all of the sudden." That protection racket that the government establishes, it's inherently inferior to your own personal man that can do all of that for you, correctly, in a timely manner, and can also give you children. Men are way better than government or ideology, many women have just been propagandized, but their biological imperatives do push them in the correct direction.
On top of that, it isn't all women. In a scale of 1-10, my two friends who are both 1's just got married because there was no way the girl who was a 1 was gonna marry a 3. Yes, I know that cuckolding exists, but that's not normal for either men or women, just Leftists.
I'd agree that the two solutions aren't compatible, but an anti-natal position is a civilizaitonal death sentence, and maybe a kind of personal one too. "Women are shit, so let civilization die, and I'll be alone forever because fuck women" isn't even a mature, let alone reasonable, answer to any issue. Anti-natalism just can't be adopted as a solution across any society, and even individually it cultivates a personal sense of paranoia, depression, and fatalism. Anti-natalism is black-pilling.
Worse, anti-natalism is everywhere on the Left who genuinely want, and profit from, depopulation efforts. Again, an anti-natal solution is victory for the Left and death for civilization... all civilization.
There can't be a compromise on that. I'm not saying you must have kids if it ends up not being possible; but you can't give up and die.
Lmfao at sincerely comparing "guy who pathologically hates women and takes advantage of a forum where nobody tells him to fuck off" to the King of Kings.
18 comments on a thread about what gyp marriage is and I was hoping there would be some decent MGTOW discussion. Nope, it's just Imp and Antonio going at it again.
Look's it's only 3 hours.
How about this:
Marriage is always valuable, but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family; the state is an abomination that is destroying families. The decades of conservatives in family court have done nothing, and never will, because you can't legislate morality. People either embrace morality, or they don't. If you try to legislate it, you get Leftist subversion which uses that rationalization to push their agenda.
However, non-state-sanctioned marriage, let us call this "pair bonding" is wildly useful. When done PROPERLY, it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family. A woman's needs can be maximized with femininity by being his animus, and helping to render aesthetics into his world which do all of that rejuvenation, and it helps him navigate social environments to foster a community, protect his social status, and create not only a family with children; but a large family (with grand-children and a clan).
In the immediate moment, you cut expenses, maximize his agency, while the wife keeps him constantly pushing the limits of his responsibility and agency. Allowing him to be happier and more fulfilled.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
Now, the state's intrusion into families has only hurt them so far. What this means is that men and women will need to basically force the culture to change in local communities one family unit at a time. This, unfortunately, means that men will have to be at their strongest and most selective. Men's agency means that women will actually be more willing to adapt themselves to men's needs... but that means he has to be already: very dominant, very mature, very stoic, and very independent. Literally: strong men create good times. What we have now are not just weak men, but 3-5 generations of weak men, so that men barely know what masculinity is (let alone stoicism), and even their parents can't tell them. So, there's no chance any woman will know beyond her own emotional responses that are ingrained in her psyche.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework. The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own. No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit. Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol. Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful. Eventually, she will become a resentment-mongering relationship suicide bomber that you are training to detonate on the rest of us.
Stop that right now.
Yes, women can drag you to court, but that's kind of the point: you're never going to chose a woman who would consider it. Women can't lower their standards. They have a biologically imperative to marry up. And because of institutional narcissism, they want to marry way up. What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor. You have to demonstrate yourself as literally that. The strong, dominant, wealthy, hero that is going to pull this 4 out of the feminist oubliette of insecurity and competition; an into a literal patriarchy, where she will already willingly choose to be submissive because she clearly fucking lucked out. If she's willing to improve herself with the security and stability that you provide, then she's the one you've got to go with. I'm not saying whores or broken people, but women who are low status who knows that her greatest break in her life isn't her career, but is her husband that her whole friend group is furiously jealous of. The more upset her friends are that you won't date them, and they don't see what you see in her, the better.
Or in other words: if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife. From my personal point of view, pick an ugly woman to marry you. A pretty woman makes her husband look small, and very often causes his downfall. As soon as he marries her, then she starts to do the things that will break his heart. But if you make an ugly woman your wife, you'll be happy for the rest of your life. An ugly woman cooks meals on time, and she'll give you piece of mind.
You'll also save western civilization. I hope that helped.
FFS. Just. Please stop.
WHAAAT!
Where the hell did you find this nugget? Which sociology professor told you this steaming pill of hogwash. I am going to need to see proof of this. Source right now or your whole thread is suspect.
This is perhaps the most ignorant crap I have read here all week. Look sweetie, I know feminism is now telling you marriage is good. But for over half a century it has been telling women that marriage is slavery. Men get it now. They have adjusted and it is backfiring on women, so now the narrative is changing - but this transition away from marriage has just begun. The negative effects of feminism will last well into the next century. Such is the power of religion.
Also, Western Civilization is imperialist, racist, homophobic and all the other isms you people have claimed it is for decades. White men in particular have heard you on that too - and they are no longer feeding that system.
You're welcome.
Shut the fuck up you retard, I've been here longer than you, and have been arguing against feminism longer than you. These are fucking reactionary positions at this point because Sociology professors teach the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Plenty of them have this crazy idea that restrictions on sex and breeding rights were invented by Capitalism.
And you are the one crying like a Leftist by saying "SOURCE????!!!"
The source is that it is the point of pair-bonding. Why is a woman supposed to cook and clean in a relationship? Because that way a man doesn't have to. He can work longer hours, harder, because he doesn't have to do the chores or cook for himself. In fact, that's actually the primary reason homosapiens invented cooking at all. Cooking food makes digestion of food extremely easy. Gorillas have giant pot-bellies because they actually need a vast amount of space and time to digest food for hours and hours. Meanwhile, humans can cook food, dramatically cut down on the time it takes for digestion, and can literally energize themselves faster as a species because of this. When you combine this with the fact that we are an endurance predator that has to literally run our prey to exhaustion, it means that every second saved counts. Women cooking food, cuts down on the workload and time that a man has to sacrifice to maintain himself. She will never run as fast or as far as him, is less resistant to damage, and is less resistant to psychological stress. That means he is monopolizing the agency of the pair-bond since he can make the most of it. She sacrifices her agency and has to take a rejuvenation roll to keep him hunting, fighting, or otherwise working.
Don't come at me with your stupid scripted response. There's no feminists here.
You could have just said
REEEEEEEE!!!
Much more effective sweetie.
Well, you certainly do a good job of spewing their talking points.
Women maximize men's agency. REALLY?
Do you have any idea how utterly wrong this is - at every possible level. I can't even think of one way this make sense outside of some super passive dude who is miserable in his relationship with a boss bitch.
Also, you do know that name calling is a huge red flag when some teenager cannot back up their points with something reasonable. Right?
Have a good day bro. You are fighting your fight so don't give up.
But I guarantee you one thing with nearly 100% certainty - you WILL see this differently in the future.
How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
I'm not going to quote-reply you because it gets too messy, so just recognize your specific comments when I get to them. Marriage, as to say: pair-bonding, is always beneficial unless you are tying yourself to someone who is actually damaging or dangerous. Most of the time, even a loveless marriage actually still benefits both parties and particularly the children, if those parties were to actually do what I said and not entirely sabotage the relationship.
Woman's nature is not the nature of the state. Feminism pushed these changes because Leftists balkanized people and applied a Marxist dialectic, which they've been doing forever. Women's nature is to seek protection. Cucking men, caused women to reach out to the government, which is why the government embraces feminism as a mechanism of control.
Yes, rejuvenation is the point. That's what a good wife is actually going to do. A healthy relationship means you actually enjoy your woman and she can inspire her man. No, a dishwasher or a microwave does not replace anyone. This is actually a classic Left-wing economics mistake. Capital investment doesn't remove labor, it makes labor more efficient, which then requires less of that labor so the people working can do other things. No microwave can beat a woman cooking a healthy meal for her husband. A vacuum doesn't mean that a man doesn't have to clean the house, just that he can clean it faster. A woman with a vacuum means she can clean it at the same speed, but he doesn't have to do it at all, saving him significant time.
Evolutionary biology shows that Homo Sapiens are polyamorous, not polygamous. Pair bonding has always existed in every civilization, and in non-civilizations. Where hypergamy has existed, it was the result of authoritarian power structures. Harems are not the norm. Women aren't like birds which are biologically driven to not find another mate even after their mate's death; but that's not the same as being incapable of loyalty.
Yes, we do have to pull women's protections too, that's actually an essential feature. If women can be protected by the state, the state can give them a short-sighted offer to join the pharaoh's harem, but it will leave both men and women unhappy while fostering an authoritarian society.
You're removing men's agency when you're claiming that your "body pumps you with enough chemicals". My exact point is that modern men are wildly undisciplined. It's not impossible to resist some basic urges with discipline and stoicism. Men need to square themselves away, not get into any relationships, and only when they have the discipline and dominance for it, get into one relationship. Until then, buy a fleshlight or some shit. That's why feminists get really mad about sex bots. The "modern women" phenomenon is making it clear that a lot of these propagandized women don't have anything else to offer than what the sex bot does. Except they have worse personalities. As a stripper I talked to once said, "men don't typically objectify women, instead they personify objects as women." The fact that waifus are displacing women is not from a man's need for sex, but a man's need for a relationship, which they have a selection pressure over, but typically don't know.
I haven't misdiagnosed the problem. I'm actually saying that the solution is for men to work around it. Women aren't going to change because women operate in the aesthetic. Women change for men who can secure them. Of all of the former Leftist women I've spoken to, it was universally something like: "as soon as I got my boyfriend, I stopped hanging out with feminists. They seemed kinda crazy all of the sudden." That protection racket that the government establishes, it's inherently inferior to your own personal man that can do all of that for you, correctly, in a timely manner, and can also give you children. Men are way better than government or ideology, many women have just been propagandized, but their biological imperatives do push them in the correct direction.
On top of that, it isn't all women. In a scale of 1-10, my two friends who are both 1's just got married because there was no way the girl who was a 1 was gonna marry a 3. Yes, I know that cuckolding exists, but that's not normal for either men or women, just Leftists.
I'd agree that the two solutions aren't compatible, but an anti-natal position is a civilizaitonal death sentence, and maybe a kind of personal one too. "Women are shit, so let civilization die, and I'll be alone forever because fuck women" isn't even a mature, let alone reasonable, answer to any issue. Anti-natalism just can't be adopted as a solution across any society, and even individually it cultivates a personal sense of paranoia, depression, and fatalism. Anti-natalism is black-pilling.
Worse, anti-natalism is everywhere on the Left who genuinely want, and profit from, depopulation efforts. Again, an anti-natal solution is victory for the Left and death for civilization... all civilization.
There can't be a compromise on that. I'm not saying you must have kids if it ends up not being possible; but you can't give up and die.
Bro, did you get this from ChatGPT?
Be honest - you are among friends...
Excellent answers. Almost every single statement in between what you covered could be ripped apart in similar fashion.
Have a fake internet point.
This forum gets way more readable if you simply click the collapse bar as soon as you see the misogyny gimmick guy's username.
I found the butthole.
"misogyny gimmick"
Lmfao at sincerely comparing "guy who pathologically hates women and takes advantage of a forum where nobody tells him to fuck off" to the King of Kings.
It's a meme, retard.
All the personal attacks in the world can't change the fact that women constantly prove me right with their own actions.
First they mock you, then they ignore you, then they attack you, until the truth becomes inescapable.
I didn't think posting this comment would be the impetus for what I wanted. Well done gentlemen.
u/Gizortnik u/deeplydisturbed1 u/TheImpossible1 u/lines
Well, you seemed disappointed, and I didn't want that.
Although deeplydisturbed1 genuinely deserves no praise for his contribution.
Should I just reply to him less? I feel the majority of my comments are to him.
How?
Yes.
Yes. Your comments are sometimes useful to read. His comments attacking you are just nitpicking bullshit that serve no purpose.
That is a contradiction in terms.