A better option is to forcibly stop women from being so retarded.
And then what? Their n counts are in the triple digits so it's not like they're wife material. Large numbers of cat ladies aren't good for the political system as we've already found out. Stripping their right to vote might work, but we'd still have millions of less than worthless parasites in our midst. I think disposing of them one way or the other is the best option.
This isn't a shot at you, but I always find it funny how people try to have it both ways; women are retarded children with no agency, who just need to be told what to do...but are also horrible monsters and are unsalvageable.
If women don't have agency (again, want to be clear, not saying you're saying that) then all women are salvageable, because they're malleable and will go along with whoever takes charge.
I absolutely agree the WQ is incredibly tricky, and maywill likely never be solved. But the duality of women being both evil and malleable always strikes me as a bit funny.
Are you sure that the "women are evil" camp has any substantial overlap with the "women are malleable" camp? I think I've made it obvious that I'm in the former group. I appreciate that you're engaging in good faith so I'm not trying to be a dick, but "the manosphere isn't a monolith" would be the snarky answer if I wanted to be. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a matter of holding both opinions at once.
It's also worth noting that malleability is a matter of degree rather than a boolean (I really wish pedophiles hadn't ruined words like binary and spectrum). I think it's possible to create an incentive structure that prevents their shitty nature from blowing up the whole operation, but that only suppresses the problem which is why the WQ is a challenge that every generation faces. It doesn't fundamentally change what they are, and that means there are a lot of hidden costs to keeping things functional. There are no perfect solutions and tradeoffs need to made to keep civilization viable.
I appreciate that you're engaging in good faith so I'm not trying to be a dick, but "the manosphere isn't a monolith" would be the snarky answer if I wanted to be. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a matter of holding both opinions at once.
Fair point, and well said. Appreciate the discussion. I fall more into the second camp personally, and think that, even if women were evil, if men were doing their jobs (for lack of better phrasing), women's worse aspects would be kept mostly in check. The current society is not set up to confront women's failings.
But, you're right, it's not necessarily the same group saying each thing...although I have definitely talked to some people who think women are braindead and have no agency...but are also evil. Which still seems weird to me.
I think about the WQ a lot and my conclusion is you're both right. Women are weak, and need to be lead, and without that, they become wicked and corrupt. They're also inherently selfish due to the nature of pregnancy and caring for babies, which is a good trait to have when its relegated to the home, but utterly disastrous when taken beyond that. We as men need to recognize that and act accordingly, no more of this "equality" shit, and that goes for the tradcucks as well.
it'll never make sense to me how you can hold an opinion that will literally and irrevocably end itself within a lifetime. it's like with homosexuals, the only way they can actually get to go on is to reproduce horizontally by grooming a few kids. is that what you hope to do before you die alone and childless, or does "leave them to their fate" imply the extension "after giving me a cute one to abuse"?
Why would I want to commit myself to some neurotic ex coalburner who only sees me as a life raft to run away from the consequences of her actions? And that's not even getting into the possibility of getting my life fucked in a potential divorce.
I get it, I'm not perfect by any means and I don't expect some 10/10 young virgin to somehow fall out of the sky for me, especially at my age. But at the very least I didn't sleep with 20 different dudes before realising I needed to find some gullible simp to settle down with.
And then what? Their n counts are in the triple digits so it's not like they're wife material. Large numbers of cat ladies aren't good for the political system as we've already found out. Stripping their right to vote might work, but we'd still have millions of less than worthless parasites in our midst. I think disposing of them one way or the other is the best option.
This isn't a shot at you, but I always find it funny how people try to have it both ways; women are retarded children with no agency, who just need to be told what to do...but are also horrible monsters and are unsalvageable.
If women don't have agency (again, want to be clear, not saying you're saying that) then all women are salvageable, because they're malleable and will go along with whoever takes charge.
I absolutely agree the WQ is incredibly tricky, and
maywill likely never be solved. But the duality of women being both evil and malleable always strikes me as a bit funny.Are you sure that the "women are evil" camp has any substantial overlap with the "women are malleable" camp? I think I've made it obvious that I'm in the former group. I appreciate that you're engaging in good faith so I'm not trying to be a dick, but "the manosphere isn't a monolith" would be the snarky answer if I wanted to be. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a matter of holding both opinions at once.
It's also worth noting that malleability is a matter of degree rather than a boolean (I really wish pedophiles hadn't ruined words like binary and spectrum). I think it's possible to create an incentive structure that prevents their shitty nature from blowing up the whole operation, but that only suppresses the problem which is why the WQ is a challenge that every generation faces. It doesn't fundamentally change what they are, and that means there are a lot of hidden costs to keeping things functional. There are no perfect solutions and tradeoffs need to made to keep civilization viable.
Fair point, and well said. Appreciate the discussion. I fall more into the second camp personally, and think that, even if women were evil, if men were doing their jobs (for lack of better phrasing), women's worse aspects would be kept mostly in check. The current society is not set up to confront women's failings.
But, you're right, it's not necessarily the same group saying each thing...although I have definitely talked to some people who think women are braindead and have no agency...but are also evil. Which still seems weird to me.
I think about the WQ a lot and my conclusion is you're both right. Women are weak, and need to be lead, and without that, they become wicked and corrupt. They're also inherently selfish due to the nature of pregnancy and caring for babies, which is a good trait to have when its relegated to the home, but utterly disastrous when taken beyond that. We as men need to recognize that and act accordingly, no more of this "equality" shit, and that goes for the tradcucks as well.
Can't live with them, can't live without them.
Agreed. They aren't salvageable. Leave them to their fate.
it'll never make sense to me how you can hold an opinion that will literally and irrevocably end itself within a lifetime. it's like with homosexuals, the only way they can actually get to go on is to reproduce horizontally by grooming a few kids. is that what you hope to do before you die alone and childless, or does "leave them to their fate" imply the extension "after giving me a cute one to abuse"?
And why would I want to reproduce with them?
Why would I want to commit myself to some neurotic ex coalburner who only sees me as a life raft to run away from the consequences of her actions? And that's not even getting into the possibility of getting my life fucked in a potential divorce.
I get it, I'm not perfect by any means and I don't expect some 10/10 young virgin to somehow fall out of the sky for me, especially at my age. But at the very least I didn't sleep with 20 different dudes before realising I needed to find some gullible simp to settle down with.