Feminism deflowers the minds of women

[Donnadogsoth]

Woman qua women, usually have bubbles in their minds, mental bubbles. They have a kind of expensive and rarefied fantasy existence that lends itself to exploitation by the fashion industry, the romance novel industry, and the keep and minding of children. This fantasy existence is a good and valuable part of the female psyche. It helps women stay sane amidst the wash of emotional calculus they have to deal with, and it adds to them a glamour, a vulnerability and a beauty that appeals to men.

 

Men qua men are unlike women, having instead a kind of violence-defined identity. This violence doesn't need to be literal; for most men their violence is psychological or vicarious in some way, as seen in Chess and other violent games, games of winner-loser, including physical games like Hockey or Football.

 

Women are sickened by the dreariness of their wise emotional logic, and long to escape into the fabulous, the delicate and dainty and flowery. Men dwell within the esoteric realm of intuition. They don't need bubbles, they live in a permanent bubble that becomes oppressive in its illogicality, drawing them towards honour, rules, principled creativity.

 

When women's bubbles burst they are ANGRY. They will often turn their anger inwards and become even more feminine than before. They will faint, hide behind their men, watch their men to see if they too are being overcome, and abide by the strength they see their men incarnate.

 

Feminism bursts their bubble. It tells them their dreams of domesticity are garbage, that infants are disposable, that the world is against them. But, the difference with feminism is, it sells solidarity with other women (feminists, really), by leading women to consider the traumatic transfer of anger towards men. Men are the enemy, men have burst the bubble—don't shoot the messenger!--the messenger has a plan of revenge.

 

Women thus act more like men, they enter the workplace in at par numbers, they dominate post-secondary institutions, they kill their children, they forsake children entirely. Men find the appeal of women begins to evaporate down to the bare bones of sexual attraction, but it is a withered attraction, a masturbatory attraction. Two organic entities bumping and grinding in search of a relief and a higher level of emotionality that has been ruined. And when that fails there are always drugs.

 

Women, bereft of their bubbles, and men, bereft of their treasure, have nothing to defend, and nothing to fight except each other. Some men segue from the fight into glorified sexual apathy—MGTOW, Herbivore, heritageless, hopeless. Some women embody their politics and simply work until their biological alarms die. Childless and aromantic, they wait to die too.

 

Women, do yourself a favour and stay away from feminism. It will make you bitter and angry, a sad trait combination for a woman to have.

 

Men, do yourself a favour and caution women from feminism as much as you feasibly can. There is more than enough to be angry about in the world, let her take your lead in the proper things to be angry about. Preserving her bubble of wonder will preserve the treasure that makes fighting the good fight worthwhile.

[aviet]

Woman qua women, usually have bubbles in their minds,

This is a very interesting analysis. Although you can't sum up the sum drives of all men and women in a few paragraphs, this gives a concise description of some major, current trends.

 

Diverging slightly, the philosophical approach to raising children is possibly the most important aspect of civilisation. The only reason we live like we do now is via the family system through which large amounts of effort are put into bettering the lives of offspring. One of the key differences between modern, Western humans and animals is the collosum of information that is passed on. Feminism has thoroughly assaulted this model with a toxic form of liberalism that says there is no difference between children raised by single-mothers and two parents, there is no difference between a child nurtured by its parents in infancy and a child shoved into childcare with a few minutes of personal attention each day; there really isn't any difference between anything (unless its something that is labeled conservative, such as homeschooling, in which case its bad) so long as a woman is making whatever decision she wants. In true regressive form, all of this ignore reason and evidence liberalism is counteracted by the double-think that the government needs to step in to subsidise situations created the notion that those situations are no different to traditional models of raising children.

[Kikker]

Woman qua women, usually have bubbles in their minds, mental bubbles. They have a kind of expensive and rarefied fantasy existence that lends itself to exploitation by the fashion industry, the romance novel industry, and the keep and minding of children. This fantasy existence is a good and valuable part of the female psyche. It helps women stay sane amidst the wash of emotional calculus they have to deal with, and it adds to them a glamour, a vulnerability and a beauty that appeals to men.

 

Delusional women are appealing to men? Got it.

 

Men qua men are unlike women, having instead a kind of violence-defined identity. This violence doesn't need to be literal; for most men their violence is psychological or vicarious in some way, as seen in Chess and other violent games, games of winner-loser, including physical games like Hockey or Football.

 

Women are sickened by the dreariness of their wise emotional logic, and long to escape into the fabulous, the delicate and dainty and flowery. Men dwell within the esoteric realm of intuition. They don't need bubbles, they live in a permanent bubble that becomes oppressive in its illogicality, drawing them towards honour, rules, principled creativity.

 

When women's bubbles burst they are ANGRY. They will often turn their anger inwards and become even more feminine than before. They will faint, hide behind their men, watch their men to see if they too are being overcome, and abide by the strength they see their men incarnate.

 

Feminism bursts their bubble. It tells them their dreams of domesticity are garbage, that infants are disposable, that the world is against them. But, the difference with feminism is, it sells solidarity with other women (feminists, really), by leading women to consider the traumatic transfer of anger towards men. Men are the enemy, men have burst the bubble—don't shoot the messenger!--the messenger has a plan of revenge.

 

Wait, domesticity and the value of the life of infants are women's delusions? Or did mean something else when talking about women's bubbles?

[Donnadogsoth]

(1) Who is more attractive, typically, to men, women who are soft, or women who are hard?  I know there's a videogame/tv/movie nerd trope these days about kung-fu chicks laying waste, but we need to realise these are largely fictions.  Real good fighters who are women generally look the part.  They're hard looking, with hard bodies and hard minds.  Is that what men are looking for, really?  Or do they prefer soft-bodied women, with gentle minds and vulnerability, caring, aesthetic even, fertile-looking, well put together?  Do men (I mean men in the mating game, not child-men who are just looking to get laid) really look for women who play against their own sexual type, or do they prefer women who play to their type?

 

(2) Women's fantasies aren't cut from whole cloth, they make use of what's around them, just as men's logic grids touch the things around them.

[Kikker]

(1) Who is more attractive, typically, to men, women who are soft, or women who are hard?  I know there's a videogame/tv/movie nerd trope these days about kung-fu chicks laying waste, but we need to realise these are largely fictions.  Real good fighters who are women generally look the part.  They're hard looking, with hard bodies and hard minds.  Is that what men are looking for, really?  Or do they prefer soft-bodied women, with gentle minds and vulnerability, caring, aesthetic even, fertile-looking, well put together?  Do men (I mean men in the mating game, not child-men who are just looking to get laid) really look for women who play against their own sexual type, or do they prefer women who play to their type?

 

I never mentioned physique nor did you in the paragraph I was responding to, don't add things irrelevant to my comment. You said that women who are tricked by fashion industry, romance novel industry and care about children live in a "bubble" which I interpreted as "delusional women". Then you proceed to claim women who don't do that are probably insane.

 

(2) Women's fantasies aren't cut from whole cloth, they make use of what's around them, just as men's logic grids touch the things around them.

 

Trusting on the misinterpretation of someone by making vague statements like these is a underhanded debate tactic. Either answer questions directly and clearly or don't bother.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

(1) Who is more attractive, typically, to men, women who are soft, or women who are hard?  I know there's a videogame/tv/movie nerd trope these days about kung-fu chicks laying waste, but we need to realise these are largely fictions.  Real good fighters who are women generally look the part.  They're hard looking, with hard bodies and hard minds.  Is that what men are looking for, really?  Or do they prefer soft-bodied women, with gentle minds and vulnerability, caring, aesthetic even, fertile-looking, well put together?  Do men (I mean men in the mating game, not child-men who are just looking to get laid) really look for women who play against their own sexual type, or do they prefer women who play to their type?

 

I never mentioned physique nor did you in the paragraph I was responding to, don't add things irrelevant to my comment. You said that women who are tricked by fashion industry, romance novel industry and care about children live in a "bubble" which I interpreted as "delusional women". Then you proceed to claim women who don't do that are probably insane.

 

(2) Women's fantasies aren't cut from whole cloth, they make use of what's around them, just as men's logic grids touch the things around them.

 

Trusting on the misinterpretation of someone by making vague statements like these is a underhanded debate tactic. Either answer questions directly and clearly or don't bother.

 

 

(1) It's a metaphor.  I'm describing two Types of women, one inside sanity-shoring "bubbles" and one inside a logic grid called feminism.  The former are "delusional" in a sense, and may be more "followers" than "leaders" overall, but they are probably happier and more appealing to men as mates.  The latter are borgified into being agents against men in general, seeking to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum.  Nice to marry?

 

(2) Resent you calling me underhanded.  Try and understand.  As I implied, "domesticity and the value of the life of infants" are not women's delusions, these are valuable things women incorporate into their "world".

[Wuzzums]

(1) Who is more attractive, typically, to men, women who are soft, or women who are hard?  I know there's a videogame/tv/movie nerd trope these days about kung-fu chicks laying waste, but we need to realise these are largely fictions.  Real good fighters who are women generally look the part.  They're hard looking, with hard bodies and hard minds.  Is that what men are looking for, really?  Or do they prefer soft-bodied women, with gentle minds and vulnerability, caring, aesthetic even, fertile-looking, well put together?  Do men (I mean men in the mating game, not child-men who are just looking to get laid) really look for women who play against their own sexual type, or do they prefer women who play to their type?

 

Yeah, I dunno about that.

Speaking for myself, I want an athletic looking woman, no soft body or gentle mind. 

There are 2 explanations I have for this.

1) Weakness of body is weakness of mind. We are not born weak or strong (yes, exceptions do exist), we become one or another through choice. When I see the classical attractive woman I just see more work for myself. If I were to choose her as mate all I have achieved is giving to myself the extra workload she's physically incapable of doing. That's not a teammate that's just some extra load on my back.

2) I remember back in highschool having crushes on traditionally feminine girls. Now I'm just annoyed by them at best. I have seen a lot of men make this switch and what they all have in common is working out or any other type of sport that makes you feel like a manly man. On fitness forums there's a general consensus that no matter how generally attractive a woman is, physically, mentally, or whatever, if she has no quad definition she is instantly docked 2 points. Please check out The Evolution of The Lifting Man for further details.

 

Thus it might in fact not be the fault of feminism entirely. The situation we are in right now might just be a consequence of us raising our standards as a whole.

What was considered a gold medalist almost a century ago now won't even make the cut.

What was considered freakishly fat, like circus level fat, now is just seen as "obese".

What was considered an olympic level bodybuilder now is seen as just "fit".

There was a time when movies used to play the credits before the movie started, now the credits are getting closer and closer to becoming a small novel.

 

So it stands to reason that we expect from women not only to be able to do the things they used to do in the past but also have a job. Same with men. The standards women have for men are arguably even more ridiculous. It's just human nature, infinite desires.

 

The question is whether or not women, or men, are up to the task.

So here comes an ideology that tells us that "Yes, women can do whatever a man can do and then some". Of course it's in the best interest of men to accept it because now they can ask for more from women. Of course it's in the best interest of women to accept it because it literally says i's the road to happiness and sainthood.

 

Ultimately what feminism does is raise the expectations to far beyond what's reasonable. This results in paralysis.

It's like I keep promising you I'm gonna give you 1000$ for free for years. Then I give you 100$ for free and say "That's it, you're not getting any more". You're gonna perceive it as a net loss, like I just took 900$ from you even though you're up 100$. The relationship is now tainted because you'll always be thinking and hoping of receiving what I convinced you to be "rightly yours".

 

When women forgo their instincts and go into the workforce seeking careers, not jobs, they quickly notice that what they get is not what was promised. Naturally they should turn against feminism for lying to them but feminism has a trick up its sleeve. It created this scapegoat called the patriarchy which can be clearly defined as "that which makes women unhappy except feminism".

 

Men are only interested in squashing it now because it just recently turned on them completely. 

 

Women are sickened by the dreariness of their wise emotional logic, and long to escape into the fabulous, the delicate and dainty and flowery. Men dwell within the esoteric realm of intuition. They don't need bubbles, they live in a permanent bubble that becomes oppressive in its illogicality, drawing them towards honour, rules, principled creativity.

 

 

Yes, women watch The Real Housewives and men watch WWE. Because the genders are different it stands to reason that their escapism would also be different.

 

 

 

When women's bubbles burst they are ANGRY. They will often turn their anger inwards and become even more feminine than before. They will faint, hide behind their men, watch their men to see if they too are being overcome, and abide by the strength they see their men incarnate.

 

Do you honestly find that fainting couch type of woman attractive? I don't. In fact I'm repulsed by them.

 

Men, do yourself a favour and caution women from feminism as much as you feasibly can. There is more than enough to be angry about in the world, let her take your lead in the proper things to be angry about. Preserving her bubble of wonder will preserve the treasure that makes fighting the good fight worthwhile.

 

Why would I preserve her bubble? I want someone that lives in reality so it's not my duty to preserve anything.

[Kikker]

(1) It's a metaphor.  I'm describing two Types of women, one inside sanity-shoring "bubbles" and one inside a logic grid called feminism.  The former are "delusional" in a sense, and may be more "followers" than "leaders" overall, but they are probably happier and more appealing to men as mates.  The latter are borgified into being agents against men in general, seeking to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum.  Nice to marry?

 

Feminists aren't in bubbles? Feminism isn't a "bubble" where females are always the victim? Or is the patriarchal society described by feminists the actual society we live in?

 

(2) Resent you calling me underhanded.  

 

Then prove me wrong.

 

Try and understand.  As I implied, "domesticity and the value of the life of infants" are not women's delusions, these are valuable things women incorporate into their "world".

 

If they're in a bubble you can easily interpret that by not being real,  that"domesticity and the value of the life of infants" only have value inside those bubbles. If they actually have value outside of those bubbles why would a women need a "world/bubble" to see those values? Are they unable to? How can you see those values if you're not inside a woman's bubbles?

 

Furthermore is there even a reality of some kind to perceive if everyone lives in some kind of logical grid or bubble? You see, claiming everyone is living in bubbles or grids only makes your argument weaker as it implies you too live in such grid or bubble meaning that you too can just barely touch reality. 

 

It is simply not clear what you're saying and your text is wide open to different interpretations.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

This is a very interesting analysis. Although you can't sum up the sum drives of all men and women in a few paragraphs, this gives a concise description of some major, current trends.

 

Diverging slightly, the philosophical approach to raising children is possibly the most important aspect of civilisation. The only reason we live like we do now is via the family system through which large amounts of effort are put into bettering the lives of offspring. One of the key differences between modern, Western humans and animals is the collosum of information that is passed on. Feminism has thoroughly assaulted this model with a toxic form of liberalism that says there is no difference between children raised by single-mothers and two parents, there is no difference between a child nurtured by its parents in infancy and a child shoved into childcare with a few minutes of personal attention each day; there really isn't any difference between anything (unless its something that is labeled conservative, such as homeschooling, in which case its bad) so long as a woman is making whatever decision she wants. In true regressive form, all of this ignore reason and evidence liberalism is counteracted by the double-think that the government needs to step in to subsidise situations created the notion that those situations are no different to traditional models of raising children.

 

I agree.

 

How much do you think the contagion is spread by mass media, social media, art in general?  Do you think these things are as powerful as they seem or is the important concern vis-a-vis communications, activism, and voting?

Yeah, I dunno about that.

Speaking for myself, I want an athletic looking woman, no soft body or gentle mind. 

There are 2 explanations I have for this.

1) Weakness of body is weakness of mind. We are not born weak or strong (yes, exceptions do exist), we become one or another through choice. When I see the classical attractive woman I just see more work for myself. If I were to choose her as mate all I have achieved is giving to myself the extra workload she's physically incapable of doing. That's not a teammate that's just some extra load on my back.

2) I remember back in highschool having crushes on traditionally feminine girls. Now I'm just annoyed by them at best. I have seen a lot of men make this switch and what they all have in common is working out or any other type of sport that makes you feel like a manly man. On fitness forums there's a general consensus that no matter how generally attractive a woman is, physically, mentally, or whatever, if she has no quad definition she is instantly docked 2 points. Please check out The Evolution of The Lifting Man for further details.

 

Thus it might in fact not be the fault of feminism entirely. The situation we are in right now might just be a consequence of us raising our standards as a whole.

What was considered a gold medalist almost a century ago now won't even make the cut.

What was considered freakishly fat, like circus level fat, now is just seen as "obese".

What was considered an olympic level bodybuilder now is seen as just "fit".

There was a time when movies used to play the credits before the movie started, now the credits are getting closer and closer to becoming a small novel.

 

So it stands to reason that we expect from women not only to be able to do the things they used to do in the past but also have a job. Same with men. The standards women have for men are arguably even more ridiculous. It's just human nature, infinite desires.

 

The question is whether or not women, or men, are up to the task.

So here comes an ideology that tells us that "Yes, women can do whatever a man can do and then some". Of course it's in the best interest of men to accept it because now they can ask for more from women. Of course it's in the best interest of women to accept it because it literally says i's the road to happiness and sainthood.

 

Ultimately what feminism does is raise the expectations to far beyond what's reasonable. This results in paralysis.

It's like I keep promising you I'm gonna give you 1000$ for free for years. Then I give you 100$ for free and say "That's it, you're not getting any more". You're gonna perceive it as a net loss, like I just took 900$ from you even though you're up 100$. The relationship is now tainted because you'll always be thinking and hoping of receiving what I convinced you to be "rightly yours".

 

When women forgo their instincts and go into the workforce seeking careers, not jobs, they quickly notice that what they get is not what was promised. Naturally they should turn against feminism for lying to them but feminism has a trick up its sleeve. It created this scapegoat called the patriarchy which can be clearly defined as "that which makes women unhappy except feminism".

 

Men are only interested in squashing it now because it just recently turned on them completely. 

 

 

Yes, women watch The Real Housewives and men watch WWE. Because the genders are different it stands to reason that their escapism would also be different.

 

 

 

Do you honestly find that fainting couch type of woman attractive? I don't. In fact I'm repulsed by them.

 

 

Why would I preserve her bubble? I want someone that lives in reality so it's not my duty to preserve anything.

 

As a product of my time as much as anyone is, I would be subject to the "enhanced expectations" you describe.  The dovetail is in living according to principles, whether artistic, political, physical, and so on.  To understand these things we draw upon the deepest depths of our humanity, which men and women share in common.  But as you say men and women are different.  I am trying to articulate how they are different in order to suggest their different paths to the common goal of reason and agape.

 

1880s-style fainting violets do not appeal to me, but modern versions of what used to be a common type do.  I want a girl who can hack horror films without being cynical about what they show.  I want a girl who is at best martial, but not muscular.  Quad definition?  Yeesh.  I like Conan but I don't want to sleep next to Conan's thighs.  And I want a girl whose feminine view on life enhances my own view and asks for conservation, rather than being a guy with tits.

 

" It created this scapegoat called the patriarchy which can be clearly defined as "that which makes women unhappy except feminism"."

 

Brilliant concision.

[Donnadogsoth]

Feminists aren't in bubbles? Feminism isn't a "bubble" where females are always the victim? Or is the patriarchal society described by feminists the actual society we live in?

 

Feminism is a logic grid, not a feel-good fantasy. It's intended to be a total description of reality and does a reasonable job of it. But not all logic-grids are created equal: consider a game of Chess, where the goal is to smash the opponent's grid. I think a feminine bubble is more of a total feeling-state accompanied by a collection of random beliefs about the world that are rationalised in. Bubbles are tea parties, grids are wars.

 

Resent you calling me underhanded.  

Then prove me wrong.

I don't do drama.

 

Try and understand.  As I implied, "domesticity and the value of the life of infants" are not women's delusions, these are valuable things women incorporate into their "world".

If they're in a bubble you can easily interpret that by not being real,  that"domesticity and the value of the life of infants" only have value inside those bubbles. If they actually have value outside of those bubbles why would a women need a "world/bubble" to see those values? Are they unable to? How can you see those values if you're not inside a woman's bubbles?

 

Furthermore is there even a reality of some kind to perceive if everyone lives in some kind of logical grid or bubble? You see, claiming everyone is living in bubbles or grids only makes your argument weaker as it implies you too live in such grid or bubble meaning that you too can just barely touch reality. 

 

It is simply not clear what you're saying and your text is wide open to different interpretations.

 

It's an hypothesis and hasn't been perfectly formulated yet.  I appreciate your help.

 

Yes, the grid/bubble idea implies what Cardinal Cusanus said in the 15th Century about understanding the Universe: that Truth is akin to a perfect circle, whereas human understanding is akin to a polygon inscribed into said circle. As knowledge increases, more angles are added to the polygon, but no amount of knowledge will allow it to become equal to the circle.

 

So with our logic grids and our bubbles. I think the difference between a grid and a bubble is that a grid is trying to understand reality whereas a bubble is trying to remain sane. Without bubbles we have half the population basically going insane, which will drive the other half there too.

 

This doesn't mean that some grids aren't more accurate than others.  Science is an example of how competition and markets (i.e. for technologies) can filter out inaccuracies.  Electrical systems is a pretty well-defined logic grid at this point.

 

The value of domesticity and the life of infants is not inconceivable outside of a bubble, but it is enhanced within one.  Babies need bubbles too, more than anyone.  I'm arguing women naturally gravitate more towards bubbles than grids, and that just as there are more or less advantageous grids, there are more or less felicitous bubbles.  Women are capable of stepping outside their world--I'm all for women's liberation, and education can be a good thing for everyone, but there is an intrinsic psychological difference between women and men and I think my hypothesis is a good shot.

[meetjoeblack]

While i agree with you about feminism "deflowering" women, there is a personal responsibility to freedom, to evidence, logic, reasoning, and being a follower shows a lack of all the above. I do not pity nor feel sympathys for said people. I avoid like the plague.

 

I started doing pickup when I became disatisfied with my dating life many years ago. In the process, I am overcoming social anxiety, fears of rejection or inadqueacy, and seeking a better life. In the process, I come to realize there is a specific type of female I like, and I have not come to meet that yet. In most instances, I meet a lot of liberal women, women who are feminist, pro choice and quick to let me know it, are both victim and perpetrator. Are very promiscuous. Looks don't matter anymore when having hit the wall. Online reeks of bios or profiles that read, "proud single mom" as if, children out of wedlock and failing to keep a man is a badge of honor. A really high kill count which FDR has shown us to have fallout later in life (divorce, single motherhood, std, etc).

 

I feel like MGTOW is calling me and it scares the fuck out of me. I want a wife. I want kids. I want to have a family but, I have seen the nature of women through pickup. It has made me evolve. I realize how women are and how they attempt to portray themselves are entirely different. In all honesty, I am ashamed I have did pickup but, what is a man suppose to do when everything you've ever been taught and believed has failed? So, I can be prey. I can wait. I can be alone or just give up or I can take charge of my life. I can approach a beautiful woman. I can do online dating. I can take a ton of action and see what comes of it? So far, i dated and I hooked up but, I am alone. I have made it this far who is to say I need to get married?

 

Woman qua women, usually have bubbles in their minds, mental bubbles. They have a kind of expensive and rarefied fantasy existence that lends itself to exploitation by the fashion industry, the romance novel industry, and the keep and minding of children. This fantasy existence is a good and valuable part of the female psyche. It helps women stay sane amidst the wash of emotional calculus they have to deal with, and it adds to them a glamour, a vulnerability and a beauty that appeals to men.

 

Men qua men are unlike women, having instead a kind of violence-defined identity. This violence doesn't need to be literal; for most men their violence is psychological or vicarious in some way, as seen in Chess and other violent games, games of winner-loser, including physical games like Hockey or Football.

 

Women are sickened by the dreariness of their wise emotional logic, and long to escape into the fabulous, the delicate and dainty and flowery. Men dwell within the esoteric realm of intuition. They don't need bubbles, they live in a permanent bubble that becomes oppressive in its illogicality, drawing them towards honour, rules, principled creativity.

 

When women's bubbles burst they are ANGRY. They will often turn their anger inwards and become even more feminine than before. They will faint, hide behind their men, watch their men to see if they too are being overcome, and abide by the strength they see their men incarnate.

 

Feminism bursts their bubble. It tells them their dreams of domesticity are garbage, that infants are disposable, that the world is against them. But, the difference with feminism is, it sells solidarity with other women (feminists, really), by leading women to consider the traumatic transfer of anger towards men. Men are the enemy, men have burst the bubble—don't shoot the messenger!--the messenger has a plan of revenge.

 

Women thus act more like men, they enter the workplace in at par numbers, they dominate post-secondary institutions, they kill their children, they forsake children entirely. Men find the appeal of women begins to evaporate down to the bare bones of sexual attraction, but it is a withered attraction, a masturbatory attraction. Two organic entities bumping and grinding in search of a relief and a higher level of emotionality that has been ruined. And when that fails there are always drugs.

 

Women, bereft of their bubbles, and men, bereft of their treasure, have nothing to defend, and nothing to fight except each other. Some men segue from the fight into glorified sexual apathy—MGTOW, Herbivore, heritageless, hopeless. Some women embody their politics and simply work until their biological alarms die. Childless and aromantic, they wait to die too.

 

Women, do yourself a favour and stay away from feminism. It will make you bitter and angry, a sad trait combination for a woman to have.

 

Men, do yourself a favour and caution women from feminism as much as you feasibly can. There is more than enough to be angry about in the world, let her take your lead in the proper things to be angry about. Preserving her bubble of wonder will preserve the treasure that makes fighting the good fight worthwhile.

 

I would caution women on any ideology in general without critical thinking. The Gita mentions you can destroy a tribe if you corrupt their women.

 

A girl I liked and picked up began her feminist rhetoric. "I don't need a man." She even said some more stuff that definitely put up red flags had I not ever did pickup or had any experiences with women and not known of mgtow, I likely would have missed.

 

She drunk dialed me recently. I never came the way she is use to guys just coming when she calls. When I saw her afterward at another time randomly, she was awkward. We didn't talk outside pretentious pleasantries. A second random encounter revealed, "LOA," temporary leave of absence at work. So, basically, the alpha dumped her, and she calls me.

 

Guys isn't that great? Alpha stops fucking her so, she drunk dials me. Aren't I special.

 

 Decades of seeing female nature has opened my eyes. There is always a motive and manipulation is somewhere in there. More recently, a girl used the word "genuine" to describe herself which again is furthest thing from the truth.

 

I will use critical thinking. I will openly discuss and debate. I think telling the truth is what men need to do again. I wont try to convert though. We have free will. A woman and man can pick and choose. I will choose to approach. I will choose to take a chance and date. A woman can choose to be with me or pick feminism, career, squandering her biology, and using the internet forums like reddit for discussions on egg freezing.