I just watched through a Korean drama with the wife -- The Glory.
It centers on an absolutely awful, spoiled rich girl who commits unforgivable acts getting her comeuppance.
You spend the entire series seeing the terrible things she's done and is currently doing, and rooting for her to be taken down.
When it finally comes and she turns on the waterworks, I still had that "I want to protect this girl" instinct kick in. It's just something we have to recognize and suppress.
Every single remotely masculine man can immediately feel the vibe change whenever a woman enters a previously all-male space. If a man doesn’t recognize it, that’s a huge red flag against him in the eyes of all the other men.
I try to watch a police video or two every week. The videos of women getting arrested are hilarious because it’s like almost uniformly true that you see them revert to a two year old the moment they realize they are being arrested. Totally Pavlovian.
“The straightforward reason to pimp out my daughter is it’s the way the world works. My daughter will be able to trade sex for favors throughout her life. My son will not.”
He is not wrong. Female cries are very effective at manipulating society for centuries. You can see this recorded in the Bible with Joseph and Pothiphar's wife (Genesis 39:13). In more recent times, we have The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird illustrating female tears manipulating people.
Both conservatives and liberals worship feminism so his daughter's tears will be useful all her life. This will never change as normies do not view this as a bad thing.
No one cares about men so teaching your son crying does nothing early in life will save his life later on. Feminist crap about "being vulnerable" are lies and will damage him later.
I will always find it infuriating that this "American Classic" spends its entire runtime treating the bad dad as the evilest thing ever, and then brushes over the daughter literally getting an innocent man killed because she was also abused and a bunch of other coddled nonsense.
I read this book as a 12-year-old so pardon any misinterpretations, but I remember Atticus being portrayed as a tired but resolute man who knew the politics of his court case would hurt his reputation but was determined to do the right thing anyway. I also thought 'Scout' described him very affectionately and the writer approached him with fondness. Did I miss the boat?
I meant the other dad, the "Robert E. Lee" Ewell (had to look it up because I didn't remember anything besides him being literally named Robert E Lee) one. The one who its implied molests his daughter so she "sought out" comfort in the black guy, which is what lead to him getting accused and killed. Which of course means that she both got him into the situation and then went along with everything that ended with him getting killed, only lacking agency if you agree that "being a victim" absolves women of any possible responsibility for their actions.
Scout's dad is treated like a real American hero in the original novel, you are correct. However the sequel published like a decade ago (after the author died, against her will, written nearly a century prior) spends most of its run time calling him actually a racist and a bad man all along.
Apparently it was an early draft of what would become To Kill a Mockingbird and was just kept as a personal hobby for the author to work on throughout her life, so its canon is dubious. But its such a wild shift that it almost wild in how hard it tries to torpedo him, while also dodging literally all the philosophical, moral and legal basis the racism in the book has to call it bad. Something the original novel at least allowed to be thought about.
Really depends on the context of the crying. Did you hurt yourself? Is this a significantly emotional event? Or are you just being a little faggot because you didn't get what you want when you want it?
Shit soy millennial parent. Surprised he had the t-levels to produce a sperm.
Babies are completely helpless and crying is a literal cry for help to grab the attention of adults, something we forgot as a society when we gave the giant children with tits equal rights.
I mean contrary to what the weird influencer freaks are saying, you're still supposed to care when your sons cry too. You just teach them not to cry over little things as part of growing up and responsible parenting, not just because you don't give a fuck.
Evolution of new traits, yes. Elimination of undesirable traits can be much faster if the environmental selection pressures are strong enough. Because all you're doing there is pruning back the genetic tree instead of mutating something new.
So that implies that either we don't currently have wide enough sexual dimorphism to let bitches still cry and boys not, a la nipples. Or the selection pressures aren't actually that strong.
Because its a desirable trait early in life, with a baby, that helps increase the odds of survival because of how useful it is for the babies. All removing it would do is make male infants die more often, which only makes all the problems worse.
And all the social pressures in the world can't beat that biological fact, and the tear ducts don't just dry out with age because they continue to see use in things like heat and illness reactions.
Women being sociopathic pieces of shit starts with being coddled like this early in life.
I just watched through a Korean drama with the wife -- The Glory.
It centers on an absolutely awful, spoiled rich girl who commits unforgivable acts getting her comeuppance.
You spend the entire series seeing the terrible things she's done and is currently doing, and rooting for her to be taken down.
When it finally comes and she turns on the waterworks, I still had that "I want to protect this girl" instinct kick in. It's just something we have to recognize and suppress.
That's what male-only spaces used to be for, an escape from the hypnosis so you can come back to you senses.
Every single remotely masculine man can immediately feel the vibe change whenever a woman enters a previously all-male space. If a man doesn’t recognize it, that’s a huge red flag against him in the eyes of all the other men.
I was barely a teenager and I still recognized that this was a thing that happened.
I can't really fathom just how much of an NPC you have to be to think it doesn't.
Most K-dramas involve either a rich haughty girl or a poor girl...
Then again, I watched them in the 90s when growing up because we had a local Korean over-the-air station that subtitled a lot of these slop dramas lol
almost always the boyfriend dies/lost memory in car accident
I try to watch a police video or two every week. The videos of women getting arrested are hilarious because it’s like almost uniformly true that you see them revert to a two year old the moment they realize they are being arrested. Totally Pavlovian.
Women aren’t capable of internalizing or being accountable the way men are and it’s a genetic thing not a social thing.
I’m not saying it’s good.
The way to fix women is to remove them from male spaces. Abolish no fault divorce. and repeal the 19th.
“The straightforward reason to pimp out my daughter is it’s the way the world works. My daughter will be able to trade sex for favors throughout her life. My son will not.”
Shocking no one, weak men raise abusive daughters.
He is not wrong. Female cries are very effective at manipulating society for centuries. You can see this recorded in the Bible with Joseph and Pothiphar's wife (Genesis 39:13). In more recent times, we have The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird illustrating female tears manipulating people.
Both conservatives and liberals worship feminism so his daughter's tears will be useful all her life. This will never change as normies do not view this as a bad thing.
No one cares about men so teaching your son crying does nothing early in life will save his life later on. Feminist crap about "being vulnerable" are lies and will damage him later.
He isn't wrong about that aspect, but he's wrong to continue the trend.
My nieces have known for years that crying to get their way doesn't work with me, and they don't even try anymore.
I will always find it infuriating that this "American Classic" spends its entire runtime treating the bad dad as the evilest thing ever, and then brushes over the daughter literally getting an innocent man killed because she was also abused and a bunch of other coddled nonsense.
I read this book as a 12-year-old so pardon any misinterpretations, but I remember Atticus being portrayed as a tired but resolute man who knew the politics of his court case would hurt his reputation but was determined to do the right thing anyway. I also thought 'Scout' described him very affectionately and the writer approached him with fondness. Did I miss the boat?
I meant the other dad, the "Robert E. Lee" Ewell (had to look it up because I didn't remember anything besides him being literally named Robert E Lee) one. The one who its implied molests his daughter so she "sought out" comfort in the black guy, which is what lead to him getting accused and killed. Which of course means that she both got him into the situation and then went along with everything that ended with him getting killed, only lacking agency if you agree that "being a victim" absolves women of any possible responsibility for their actions.
Scout's dad is treated like a real American hero in the original novel, you are correct. However the sequel published like a decade ago (after the author died, against her will, written nearly a century prior) spends most of its run time calling him actually a racist and a bad man all along.
Apparently it was an early draft of what would become To Kill a Mockingbird and was just kept as a personal hobby for the author to work on throughout her life, so its canon is dubious. But its such a wild shift that it almost wild in how hard it tries to torpedo him, while also dodging literally all the philosophical, moral and legal basis the racism in the book has to call it bad. Something the original novel at least allowed to be thought about.
As an aside since you mentioned, Arthur Miller is one of the evilest men to ever live
I'm sure "Kauffman" knows about using guilt in order to get what he wants too.
Innocence is beautiful on a woman and ugly on a man.
Lmao
Innocence is beautiful on children and annoying at best on adults.
Really depends on the context of the crying. Did you hurt yourself? Is this a significantly emotional event? Or are you just being a little faggot because you didn't get what you want when you want it?
Shit soy millennial parent. Surprised he had the t-levels to produce a sperm.
MGTOW calls this gynocentrism
If you are a tradcon, you are guilty of this as well.
Gynocentrism makes evolutionary sense, but only within the confines of a patriarchy.
Makes you wonder why boys haven't evolved out of crying in the first place. Just an accident of development like having nipples?
Babies are completely helpless and crying is a literal cry for help to grab the attention of adults, something we forgot as a society when we gave the giant children with tits equal rights.
I mean contrary to what the weird influencer freaks are saying, you're still supposed to care when your sons cry too. You just teach them not to cry over little things as part of growing up and responsible parenting, not just because you don't give a fuck.
Exactly. People are fucking weird. Men need to start caring about fellow men instead of just simping.
Because some of us actually take care of our boys and not just leave them crying unattended like this Kaufman trash.
True evolution at the genetic level takes tens, hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
Evolution of new traits, yes. Elimination of undesirable traits can be much faster if the environmental selection pressures are strong enough. Because all you're doing there is pruning back the genetic tree instead of mutating something new.
So that implies that either we don't currently have wide enough sexual dimorphism to let bitches still cry and boys not, a la nipples. Or the selection pressures aren't actually that strong.
Because its a desirable trait early in life, with a baby, that helps increase the odds of survival because of how useful it is for the babies. All removing it would do is make male infants die more often, which only makes all the problems worse.
And all the social pressures in the world can't beat that biological fact, and the tear ducts don't just dry out with age because they continue to see use in things like heat and illness reactions.
Evolution isn't a single factor process.
Yes and we evolved to be pro-social which includes showing and giving a shit about peoples emotions. This psycho behavior is a recent development
Boys still need to cry as literal infants. They must be weened off of it quickly, however.
Is Wayne Burkett someone we should care about?
Unfortunately he is a moderately influential RW account despite not really being RW
Be a strong dad. Don't give in when your son or daughter cries.