The truth is somehow offensive.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
It's the weird conservative thots and their simps getting outraged. As if somehow, men in general haven't preferred younger women through history
Things are getting so crazy, culturally. They already were, but they're getting weirder. Just like with the Israel thing shredding Jews of much of their longstanding protection, a bunch of "conservative" women keep outing themselves as basically feminists-lite.
I've said it before, but women have at the very least some level of ingroup bias, always. Which means even the most "based and conservative" women will, at one point or another, sound like maybe a slightly more sane version of your average feminist. Some conceal it or even squash the impulse better, and this isn't some 'all whamen are evil' thing...but it's there. Waiting. Lurking.
Seriously, though. I'm not sure what it is, but everything seems to be doing weird shit. So many groups are changing what they think on an issue, or what others think of them. "Immigration" is another big one, although that's more manufactured. The Democrats are now blaming the right/Republicans for the "crisis," when we were told for years it wasn't a crisis. Discourse is so dumb right now.
Others have already pointed out the prevalence of tradcucks and tradthots, but I'll also make the point that many people in the 'boomer' generation are strongly feminist, even if they don't call themselves that.
The sudden switch to a completely gynocentric society (as opposed to one where men and women had different domains) did not come from hardcore feminists, but rather due to the attitudes prevalent among most people. If you observe boomers, you'll find that boomer men in particular strongly believe that women were 'behind' entirely because of unfair discrimination. They might, for example, point out how "it's about time that women were common in male-dominated professions" or be at pains to point out the "genius of women" or other such thing. Many of these men have swallowed feminist rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Having come of age and spending most of their years of employment in male-dominated fields were women were not represented, they never actually had a chance to observe what women were like in the workplace, and so fall on their default chivalrous attitude where they take women's word for it.
It is only men and boys of younger generations that have actually been exposed to what women are really like and thus are better able to see feminist bullshit for what it is. Even then, men and boys post-boomer have suffered in a different way - they were constantly bombarded from their childhood onwards with feminist rhetoric and have had this drummed into them and need to be able to rise above this to become anti-feminist.
It goes without saying that I think that feminist rhetoric is harmful to men and boys in particular, and harmful to society in general, and men who realize this should do whatever they can to oppose it.
We've always been gynocentric. Even the oldest religions have a basis in gynocentrism.
What changed is our social dynamics between men and women. Less physical labour, the birth control pill, welfare and so forth that allows women to survive independently of men. If anything, we're seeing the beginning of the transition back to the sexual strategy humans naturally follow - a tournament species. Where a small number of high value men monopolise the dating market, children are raised collectively in alloparenting by the women and most men get nothing but work and pay taxes in return for being a member of society.
No. I disagree. This is of those "evolutionary psychology" myths which is simply a modern rationalisation of the behavior observed in current society, as is the rest of your comment (evolutionary psychology is bunk, but that is a topic for a different time).
Human society has always had a basis in differing roles for men and women, not gynocentrism per se. I'm not sure what you mean by "the oldest religions", but it's clear to me that Christianity, as an example, is patriarchal, not gynocentric. The difference is that under patriarchy, it is the male role to lead society and men have natural authority over women. Part of the role may be to provide for and care for women in their families and societies, but this is an example differing roles of men and women (equally, women were expected to care for their families and societies including their men, using their feminine abilities and talents).
That "gynocentrism" is natural is a myth usually justified by modern thinking that is inherently flawed. For example, a common "evolutionary psychology" argument is that women are more intrinsically valuable, usually justified based on something to do with how many babies a man vs a woman could have, which makes no sense since the limiting factor in human populations is the ability to successful provide for the population and raise children to adulthood, for which men play a more important role than women. This is the reason males (boys) have been historically valued more than females (girls). We can see that even today in countries such as China.
It is only feminist societies in which this is reversed. Yes, this is partly to do male roles in Western society becoming less important as there is less of a need to physical strength, but in is more to do with the prevailing attitudes in society rather than reality. Even in modern Western societies women do not survive independently of men, their survival is still supported by men except not men in their families, but the men who do all the useful jobs like maintaining the food and water supplies, electricity and transport, mining resources and building homes etc.
I also disagree that the "natural" sexual strategy of humans naturally follow is "a tournament species". This makes no sense. Humans have always lived in societies. While there may have been examples of successful "tournament" human societies when one man gets all the women, this is generally a poorly surviving society as it requires other means to coercing the majority of men (who have no wives or children) to defend and provide for that society. As opposed to a society made up of stable families, in which all members of the society have a strong stake of their own in maintaining the society. In the latter example, it does not mean there is no hierarchy in the society. The "best" men (who win "tournaments") still get the "best" women. But the men below that also get women, simply not the "best" ones.
That and free hard-core porn on demand. Imagine the twisted perception of women and sex that comes from that cocktail.
Feminism and pornography (or at least sexual liberalisation) go hand-in-hand. Female power is largely derived from the ability to manipulate men using female sexuality.
While it's true that pornography corrupts the minds of boys and men, in my view, the biggest issue of this is that it enslaves boys and men to their sexual passions, making them good servants of "sexual-liberated" girls and women, who can use their sexualities to manipulate boys and men to achieve their own aims.
Another example of this is the prevalent attitude in Western societies that the amount of pre-marital sex a man has is an indicator of his "value". In other words, a male who is a successful fornicator is a "high-quality" man. How can this be? This only makes sense in a perverted feminist world where the most "useful" men are those that women can have sexual power over.
For boys and men to rise above feminism and become anti-feminist, they do need to be chaste and stop using pornography and fornicating. They need to take control of their lives so they can no longer be manipulated by shitty women using sex to control them.
(Another issue is that the rise of feminism has meant that male-female relationships have been badly corrupted, which means that many men and boys who want to do the right thing and contain their sexual passions within a monogamous relationship, as God intended, are unable to do so without ending up in bad relationships. Luckily, the part of solution to this is again male chastity - as this men to filter prospective partners better prior to entering into a relationship that could result in children, leaving him tied to her for life, whether or not she will be a good wife or mother. In other words, chastity better equips men to say "no" to a bad deal).
Tradthots are feminists just like their male counterparts, the tradcucks. They keep getting outed as having a history (or present) on OF. Both are out to leech off men. The only difference is the tradthots are more effective grifters than the danger hairs, and that's why the latter hates the former.
They're all raging feminists in divorce court. Whether they were like that to start with is an open question.
"Tradcuck"? Chivalry is as stupid and degrading to men as feminism. This is what doomed the South in the Civil War as much as slavery--their adherence to Romantic notions imported from the Old World, which we should have rejected along with English rule.
Do you know why men open doors for women? Because women walk behind the man, always. chivalry wasn't ever really a thing except for the tradcucks who have always been tradcucks throughout the ages. weak men.
it started out as her acknowledging her place, and you putting her there, daily. it ended up men serving bossbitches and never meeting their eyes without permission.
Some of those conservative thots are saying oh yeah Alt right, keep disparaging women and see how we vote.
Like Kirk's not even up for a vote so wtf does what he say affect your vote. Secondly if you're willing to change party cause of a basic truth, maybe you're not really a conservative.
We need a full blacklist of these thots. It's the same women pushing the Christ is king is bad, crowder bad, 30 yr old women more attractive shit
That shit belongs in the dictionary, under "cope." It's hilarious to hear some of them spout that. I couldn't believe it, first time I saw that bullshit.
I like how they talk about "male fragility," when women are near infinitely more fragile. A bunch of them can't even handle the basic, easily observed, and biologically/evolutionarily backed reality that, yeah, women in their twenties are "better" than women in their thirties. Doesn't mean someone in their thirties are useless, but, yeah, the younger model has some inarguable advantages.
Then they use very specific examples, like look at Salma hyek and how she's still hot at 50. Bitch most women aren't Salma hyek
It's true that an indicator of how a woman will vote is whether or not she's married. But that's not Kirk's fault.
It's killing their hustle. Women jump on the tradthot bandwagon as they get older and start considering their remaining options. ("older" can mean right out of college but it still applies - the truth hurts their momentum)
At this point I consider women who went to college to be damaged goods.
modern conservatives are actually turbo-feminists, and they don't even realize it or admit it.
Tradthots and tradcucks were always thinly disguised feminists. Their incessant marriage shilling and attempts to shame men into allowing themselves to be exploited by a society that hates them gave the game away. It's just getting more attention here as of late because of Matt Walsh going full retard about gaming.