The way women objectify men does much more harm than the way men objectify women.
The philosophical group known as men-going-their-own-way has been hijacked by trad-cons & others who keep emphasizing “don’t be a nice guy.” By doing that, they’re just being like them. I don’t call myself one of them. I am strictly androcentrist. The other problem with men-going-their-own-way is that they’ve decided to take a life-style of seeking more play rather than studies. Why this is problematic is that, when they do discourses, it results with them arguing with other men like them, causing them to lose the original point, which is to investigate women, not have issues of semantics with each other, etc.. There’s also a lot who belong to men-going-their-own-way who want to prove that they’re alpha-males, but they state that, because the system is a “leftist” one, or some other reason they try to find, they can’t do it. REALITY CHECK: You’re missing the point: Women selected those alpha-males – the daddy-state – that are now depreciating your acclaimed alpha male characteristic. Now you still keep perpetuating alpha-male characteristics without even realizing the process: Your basically worshiping your own depreciation.
Women create the problem, then Feminists take credit for addressing the problems by blaming it on men.
The men who would employ some kind of rape-fantasy as a sure way to keep them actually have a more desperate mentality, yet whores call more romantic type of males “needy.”
Gynocentrism is more threatening than feminism. Factually, feminism comes from gynocentrism.
Finding by Xiao Zhang & Siyang Luo for ‘Empathy In Female Submissive BDSM Practitioners' gives that being in the submissive position role during bondage, discipline, sado-masochism weakens female empathy. Here’s the thing: Those females were already drawn to that before the process. It also stated: “Involving with BDSM practice did not necessarily result with weakened empathy abilities.” That’s because some females were “switches” – not serious about it & just doing it to try it. It’s toughening them. The women who seek that already have a desire to alter themselves. It’s a collectivist seeking.
The main problem is female selection: When the daddy-state is selected, the greed is a product, as well a cause, of those men obsessed with competition for women. We don’t have to get technical economic references, so I’ll just use an example of this type of herd drive: I’ve worked as a dishwasher at a large restaurant. I’m not a loser. What happens is: the boss expected me to just magically almost instantly clean a large sum of dishes, etc., with a certain amount of time because he didn’t want to pay the amount it would require for an extra hour or two. There’s only 1 dishwasher in the entire place, while the servers & others get tips, yet the dish washing is the hardest & a very dangerous job. This greed is obviously due to him wanting to impress women.
As I’ve stated before, it was not dominant, willful Nietzschean philosophy that created civilization. The dominant is just taking credit for what isn’t theirs. It was abstractions like Neuton & Tesla that created civilization.
I’ve philosophized many times that most males that women approve of just act like women. This is the scientific proof: Psychology Today, which is a reputable source – a source you can even buy in your grocery store, so they can’t just say it’s “fake news,” published an article: ‘Interacting With Women Makes Men Stupid’ by Scott Barry Kaufman. The conclusion was due to men impressing women. They start acting foolishly, which just proves exactly what I have been stating: that alpha-males are just applying the male version of cosmetics. It’s no wonder that high-school & college is just ripe with males adopting nonsense. It’s why males are obsessed with being “cool.” If you get rid of this drive that males are doing, females will naturally be forced to do that role much more. Her limit though, because women are not innovators, that smart, etc., will be applying more looks, which is good. Separatist schools is probably a good Idea. It’s not “just like the feminists” Males & females have different levels to be taught. It’s no wonder that men also adopt “alpha” male garbage.
Let’s establish what an alpha male even is anyway. It’s arguable, but the contemporary definition would be Johnny Depp. Compare that archetype to the quantum physics scientist: Wolfgang Pauli. Johnny Depp, as proven with the previous citation, looks pretty stupid compared. Gynocentrism devalues science, philosophy, etc., so there is a market for garbage like Johnny Depp with two ways: 1: The man comes home exhausted, so he doesn’t want to expend more discipline with reading an important books. He wants to rent a DVD. 2: Women want professional losers like Johnny Depp, so now other males idolize idiots like that.
After you’re seen as a number & cattle due to the daddy-state that females select, additionally to some bad economy, the lady is dissatisfied with him being busy. Afterwards, women contribute to conduct disorder: 70% of inmates in juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences, thanks to the implication: “Conform to my PMS”, etc., were raised by single mothers. No wonder males have a feminine aspect as hipsters, which, contrary to what they would try to deflect, that word does have real meaning, bad-boys, alphas, etc.. REAL masculinity is boring, humble, & rational. Women are ruining the family unit by female sexuality.
It is very likely that rodents evolved with the dinosaurs gone. Mammals then discovered fire, invented the wheel, etc.. With female sexuality eventually made illegal, intellectual males will be able to rightfully control.
Implicated by the divorce industry, women are selecting, or I should say: TRYING to select, a mythical man that is somehow brutal yet elegant, & other unreal things, which is why the post-modern man exists. Women are not married to husbands, they are married to law & corporations.
What happened is that the brain was designed to solve problems related to surviving in an unstable outdoor environment & to do so with nearly constant motion. We were not the strongest on the planet, but we developed the strongest minds. Here’s the thing you have to realize about that process though: It was men who did the majority of this kind of work while women were lagging, so they have less developed minds. Our ability to understand each other is our chief survival tool, hence why knowledge of female psychology is essential & why political correctness/ female narratives must be controlled, yet women don’t even have a real understanding of masculinity, whether it’s feminists complaining about male “privilege”, or if it’s the generic women gossiping together with delusion.
The brain isn’t supposed to take long-term stress. If you have a bad boss, originating from her incentives, a stressful marriage, this is obviously bad.
Stress ruins every type of cognition: memory, executive function. It can ruin motor function. Long periods can damage immune function. Depression is caused by stress. Depression, exhaustion is not an aphrodisiac to women, yet women started all of that with their incentivizing. They think that a man is going to be a work-machine, or whatever, & still have a sexy stamina. Right, your fantasies are really going to happen – not.
Women compete with envy of appearance. They compete politically to other relationships. Soccer-moms compete with envy about children. They compete with envy regarding jobs. & since the author of the book: ‘Tripping The Prom Queen’ was too stupid to number her pages (at least my edition), additionally to her other stupid justifications, I can only cite chapters instead of pages. The idea that men are the only competitors is false. Men compete for survival, which this article discloses how male-to-male competition does some good but also some bad. Alpha males do most of the bad competition, like fighter championships for one example. Beta males do most of the good competition, like Neuton & Tesla. Women compete for what you could almost describe as fun, or some kind of juvenile state of mind. That book is absurd, but gives a report on the scattered, facile psychology of females. In fact, one of my past relationships got ruined by other females because I was giving this one female attention. Her female peers didn’t like it – took it personally, started gossiping, persuaded her to rid me. The book states: We finally seek positions of power that men have always had. No. men have this because they have to give that to women. It is pseudo-power. It is a projection of female greed to want to take that from the fields of men, as feminists generally try.
The effect of female greed, which features a characteristic of female competition being different from male competition, most of the women get a relatively small amount of more competitive men, so it is much more difficult for the majority of men, & I’m not referring to low-lifes, I’m referring to other men that are good.
Former Reddit CEO: Ellen Pao was quoted to state: “You almost certainly have incels as employees.” This is exactly the type of dangerous competition that women indulge in. Female competition, which men participate with, is more likely to cause violence to groups of men, as they complain to other ignorant, useful men, than any forums that could cause a little bit of it. Think about how this was just vaguely used as “almost certainly.” They use the daddy-state on other males that females don’t like. If they want to suppress such memes, think about how female sexuality is more likely to cause violence towards other groups of males. She doesn’t define what she means. Does she mean every guy out there who has trouble with females? That’s going to be a rather large amount. This is exactly what I mean: They have the daddy-state “pummeling other males faces into the ground,” forcing others out. Female socializing is disgusting. Forcing other guys out of a job is going to lead to more anger, & dare I type hate-speech. Women hate different men that would be called or “autistic”, or whatever. Why is it that whores can monopolize their hatred, yet males can not defend themselves against whores?
Alpha males, whatever you want to call them, are effeminate – artificial intelligence, lust for greedy power, histrionic personality disorder, callousness, posing for the camera, etc..
Pick-up-artists might have some skill with luring females, but they miss the points extremely.
The cases of kids & others being mauled by pitbulls, etc., got worse during the 90s in the UK. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 was done.
What a lot of thugs realize is that it is more practical to train rottweilers, etc., to fight.  (& I refer back to the effects of single mothers)
These alpha males are to women what those dogs are to thugs. Women get to control social dynamics with the aid of the daddy-state with the pretense that they are nice & needy, & the man gets a dog to do the same. Thankfully, the cruelty of dogs was banned. The next great procedure would be to ban female sexuality & rights, other than basic ones.
Women effectively control the discourse. Any man who’s socialized with whores knows he’s going to be different near them. The greater aspect is not sexual tension, but because you have to be careful of what is said, etc.. Women are trying to maintain the rules & to castigate the different. Men are not really afraid of the woman. They’re afraid of what the woman will make the other men do. Men start behaving with a completely different manner. Other men are more willing to punish you for some slight disagreement because a woman cries a few tears.
Being a “beta” male is a good thing. You think: I’ve just chosen some bad examples to discredit the “merits” of an “alpha” male. Let me repeat again: Newton was a “beta” male. Tesla was a “beta” male. Those are the true merits. By becoming an “alpha” male,” you’re just putting yourself, even if you’re one of the good ones, you’re just putting yourself in a stupid game. It’s not worth it. A beta male unlike Neuton or Tesla is a female orbiter who has no leadership skills – true, however, alpha males are also female orbiters. They just do a parallel of the same thing slightly differently to make no real change, so become a “beta” male instead, kind of like Neuton, write a pamphlet, or something, “exposing women in the nude,” & distribute it in your community. True: a male feminist can be a beta male, but since feminism is the female ego politicized, what makes the “alpha” male different of how they promote & reinforce the female ego? Either way, your category of “alpha”, faults, whatever, is mostly irrelevant because the real issue is female nature. It’s time for decent males to stop measuring yourself as a male & start reporting female nature. Who the fuck cares what is “beta”,”alpha”, whatever?
Read some Otto Weininger.
We’ve forgotten what it is to have a few goals & be well with doing those few goals. Now women want almost everything, so we have what seems to be 100 goals instead. There were various studies claiming more educated women are less likely to divorce, & yet, there were other studies with mixed conclusions that stated that (American) 60-80% of career-oriented women file divorces, which causes the question: What constitutes as success to a woman anyway? The answer is obvious: it is a relentless greed for the ~5-1% of the MOST successful CEOs, etc. The real titles of those articles should’ve been: ‘Don’t Marry A Career Woman Because They Are Unrealistically Relentless’. Why was it that these studies regarding career-women stated that they have more successful marriages, yet also gave conflicting answers that, according to many social scientists, marrying a career woman gives the risk of being cheated, having a wife less interested in doing things that you’d like, & even getting divorce? It’s because those studies stating that career women have “more successful partnerships” are not giving the complete answers. There was even a study from quora: (You heard it’s an “amateurish” source, so it must be “wrong” – sarcasm.): Lee Witt, with a Ph.D., missing the point completely, reports that college educated women initiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men. He tries to package that this is a “good thing” that the female ego is liberated. It is basically ruining structures. & then he tries to compare that males are likely to cause non marital separations as somehow as bad as divorce that women indulge with. Don’t call this “female selection for health”. It’s just ruthlessness.
Yeah, I’m sure more educated women with pretentious degrees that don’t amount to real discovery can have her “little buddy” of a husband being docile, & also persuade female collectivism to try to get other unrealistic things. Women continue to try to get more unrealistic men the more educated women become, so the more educated women become, the more deluded they become. Of other words: when a setting that females are in becomes even better, the more expectations of even more novelty, etc., women want. Do these women ever consider that there are other good men who don’t have to be the apex of men to be good? Of course not. They’re deluded & greedy. What those women have done is they’ve just created another bad realization for men: It’s kind of like saying to a 17 year old: “You might, perhaps, just maybe, be able to win a wife if you join the army.” Wow! Thanks – not.
Women & feminists complain that men, who do more technical & dangerous jobs, get paid more, yet if you were to pay women more for their generic clerk jobs, you would have women seeing other men of middle class to be “heroin addicts.” (This also makes me remind that the work that I did was pretty dangerous & stressful. It was not just a regular dishwasher job, yet the servants, who were predominantly female, got to keep the tips. Women are more likely to get those jobs by simple observation that a cuter face, nice manicured hands, etc., is more likely to get hired. Seriously, what is so wrong with a man just settling to lift lumber, etc.?)
These claims that women are just becoming more driven just translates that women should be assigned as herd servants. It’s mostly just AI. What successful women study is not technical, it’s not science, it’s not philosophy. It’s business matters or arts. So now the woman has another flashy little fashion accessory to flaunt, which isn’t impressive. Willingly working for the system – the daddy-state – without trying to find alternatives under the pretense of “being smart” is actually stupid. Yes, you – women – should be spending a large portion of your time not really thinking, which only a man would use the pretense that it’s “fulfilling.” When you try to make conversation with me & tell me that you’re finishing college for this & that, it doesn’t impress me. All I’ve gotten from it is that you are greedy with a mask, have AI, & that you would take the opportunity to have an aggregate of 12 year old kids to employ in a sweatshop if you had the chance. Millennials are “solipsistic” because you fail to realize the latter. I’m not typing about lazy men, criminals, etc.. Men are just not motivated because they know the rewards are a gamble, inconsistent, & basically slavery, for a lack of a better word. Sure, the guy who makes more money is more successful, but what is really the difference when the dishwasher & the more successful guy still have time consuming jobs, neither of which makes him seriously appreciated. This is why women are so good with signing themselves for such procedures: they lack imagination.
Women are seduced by evil. By a Buddhist definition, & this has nothing to do with being “sensitive,” it’s a moral principle, things like dance, etc., is an evil. Such things delude, waste time, & cause arrogance. Females abuse knowledge – A.I. – as an excuse for greed, for delusions of grandeur, corrupting mankind, desiring only a small aggregate of masculinity, which then other males have to worship. The musical band: The Beetles, you are worthless. If female herds are an external mass, how is this behavior of masculinity to them intrinsic?
With the prospect of working “inside a box” for ~6 hours a day for long hours, boys are not particularly interested that much anymore. They’d rather just not even try as much, settle for some generic clerk job, & come home to a mediocre apartment. Women now are proud of gleefully taking stupid cubicle jobs & the like, so now they see those other males who would rather have what at least resembles something that is better, as “losers.” When women get more, they devalue other things.
Statistics have given that boys do better with science & math while females do better with language & arts. This is a rhetorical question: Could it be that boys are just simply not motivated to study things they don’t value, & from lack of motivation during early age, as professor Pollack suggested, because of a learning bias against their strengths, boys become uninterested & may even try to get attention by negative ways?
Problem solving & social skills can be learned with building blocks, woodworking projects, etc.. Current schooling deny this. Boys are much more interested with motor skills, technology, & problem solving. With the boys’ interested for collaborating, taking risks, being innovative rather than linear, while boys could be rewarded in the workforce for this, they are denied it & punished for it in the schools.
Some research believes changing grades is due to changing demographics rather than intellectual capacity.
By the time boys start high-school, there is another problem: peer pressure to shun academic things. With their obsession with the fashionable, social politics, & novel trying & discarding, females don’t make it particularly “cool” to be smart during that age, & although females don’t lead the parties, they control them.
Professional research claims boys’ nihilism is due to socialization rather than raw ability.
Ask boys if they read outside of schools, they often assume that reading pertains to fictions, which they generally don’t like. They should be teaching some Androcentrism in schools & all the uncomfortable truths.
Boys are very visual, so, yes, they need additional “comic book” type of learning. Action is part of a writer’s craft.
With the female work habits & reception to linear teaching habits, females have more developed career notions because there’s less offered to boys. Now there is less men women want because women have more status: When women are rich, they see – always wanting more – another successful man as a “loser.”
Alcohol & tobacco – thanks to the daddy-state finding bad ways to make a profit, which is sourced by gynocentrism – has been proven to have the same effects of ADHD to children during fetal development. Other food substances & chemicals have been suggested to correlate to ADHD, but research has not found them to contribute to it.
It’s like: “Welcome to your future of sitting in a tiny square compartment in front of a box for 6 hours per day, 7 days per week for the rest of your life instead of something more satisfying like a job related to being taught about how objects move in space, .” “Gee, thanks.” Yeah, of course, women are going to excel with preparing for the former.
What happens when you get unmotivated is you behave badly, & schools don’t offer what boys need. If teachers expect boys to behave worse, which they do, they might miss girl’s behavior problems & see well behaved boys as anomalous.
Teaching is dominated, especially earlier schooling, by women. If female PMS is one determining factor combined with the other factor that most criminals come from single mothers, how is the teachers’ treatment of what is naturally going to be boy behavior going to be the best treatment? A study, & this was even published by TIME, so you can’t say it’s “fake news,” found that boys are being treated inappropriately by teachers: It found that boys got lowered grades, even of cases of, such as science & math, test scores being equal or better than girls’. This grading was due to boys’ attitudes. In fact, well-socialized boys received bonus scores.
Boys are likely to internalize the message that school is not for boys.
Affecting all boys, what does the ~1% of the population have to directly do with how boys are with early schooling now ? Those male CEOs were boys in early schools 40-60 years ago.
We must be the proverbial nice-guys, for a lack of a better description. The problem is women & gynocentrism encourage more entropy. We have to be it, not just as necessity, but also as a challenge because humans are wired for challenge & construction, not comfort & convenience. The destructive thriving for comfort & convenience inculcates that we are wired for that though. It requires more will & self control to not do the trendy, & you will be considered wrong & defective & not good enough, even though most of good men are humble, “boring”, rational, & do not have the characteristics of the daddy-state that makes it a taboo to reject feminine notions. They’d say, “well, what you’ve just typed is cultural constructs: You don’t know how biology works.” Actually, it is biological that women evolved to be subjective. They were not exploring to the same comparison as males. They were mostly tending their bodies, etc.. It is a form of delusion. Because of that, they select for this whole process of only projecting delusions. Female collectivism is also biological, which is why they’re attracted to a very small percentage of males while basically ignoring (or using) other males.
There’s a pop. culture idea that for a man to show he has confidence, he has to be some amount of obnoxious, he has to waste money on alcohol, etc. especially by the immaturity of females. A man who has confidence doesn’t need to show to others that he has it. A confident male is not a trend-follower, but a trend creator. With the cited study published by Psychology Today that male interaction with females makes them dumber, those males bout the caricature of a “strong man,” while doing what others do for fear of not being accepted. Being loud, etc., is actually often done to compensate for a lot of fear.
A male who has confidence will wear, & not to attain eccentric prominence – validation, an atypical plaid shirt with a blue tie, & will approach a female seriously with the gift of a lollipop. Maybe a bad example, but you get the point. Society will claim he has a syndrome, yet it’s female incompetency for hating the different. The common narrative is: “He’s really smart, but he doesn’t know how to socialize.” No. The real problem is societie’s failure to realize that, when you become smarter, you are different. Societies failure to realize this is the reason why women are so comfortable with the collective of men being stupid, & why things like sarcasm is encouraged to try to impress whores.
Female liberation has caused more problems. Female obligations is a healthy equilibrium of business service & nurturing children. There is a mammalian universal reaction to being separated from a mother’s proper care: Years later, a confident child is made by the mutual contact of the child & mother. If that is gone, the reverse happens. Improper mothering has also been disclosed to be a contributor to deliquency.
Now it is considered that, if a male is “emasculated,” we “should” blame him instead because society basically guards crimes committed by women. This is what happens when you make it a taboo to hate women, which makes it a taboo to even criticize women: They’re less accounted for their obligations.
Expressing hurt is a mature version of the baby’s noises. That’s right, I typed it. We adults have the same mechanism of babies’ protest response. The only reason that women imply us to “grow up,” “shut up” about it, that we’re “bitter,” “grow some balls,” etc., etc., & why they seem to fail to understand that it’s harder for males to deal with the stress of divorce, etc., is because the female ego gets offers frequently, gets to replace men for almost any reason you can think of, & sees sexual interaction of terms of power, which is why females have rape fantasies: a rapist is a powerful man to a woman.
Lesser organisms as lizards, fish, snakes, & turtles are not capable of intricately expressing or noticing emotional messages. Not exactly the same, but we find a similar experience with the human female to male experience. Society is so ready to categorize males as “autistic” for being more systematic, yet we find that females have the attitude of “drinking male tears” frequently. Why aren’t they labeled with a disorder? The problem is women are allowed to monopolize their emotions, yet men are not seriously. This little phrase that people use: “Your arguments are emotional” to deflect is really quite silly when used during discourse of male issues. I understand the principle of not being able to solve an intricate problem when reminiscing about a theme park, but emotions have a biological function: they do something for an animal that helps it to live & communicate. Even one who studies biology should know this is an axiom of evolutionary studies.
If society is ready to denounce intelligent, systematic males as having a “syndrome”/socially inept, what makes it justifiable that female nature is “good” when hybristophilia & Stockholm Syndrome is very common with females? It’s actually pathological that women would expect males to have exact, specific body language & facial expressions just for her liking. It makes the whole deflection that a male is “autistic”/ a “beta” male irrelevant.
Males were violent during the beginnings because of the harder times, not because they wanted to be. Now, because females are not as evolved, they still have demanding desires for that. Males aren’t seriously like that anymore because the times aren’t as hard, so the other way she can usually get that is by primitive masculinity, including by guys who have more money – a male can have more money, but he’s fucking primitive – & male cosmetics.
(I do not 100% espouse all references derived.)
1: Empathy in female submissive BDSM practitioners | Siyang Luo, Xiao Zhang – sciencedirect-dot-com
2: Interacting with women makes men stupid | Scott Barry Kaufman – PsychologyToday-dot-com
3: Hawkins, J. (2009, April). Ann Coulter On Single Mothers: Statistics From ‘Guilty’
4: 12 things we know about how the brain works | Shane Parrish – theweek-dot-com
5: The Myth Of Female Solidarity | Susan Shapiro Barash – Tripping The Prom Queen
6: FORMER REDDIT CEO ELLEN PAO CHALLENGES TECH EXECUTIVES TO REMOVE ‘INCELS’ FROM SILICON VALLEY | BENJAMIN FEARNOW – Newsweek-dot-com
7:Law on dangerous dogs | Audrey Gillan – theguardian-dot-com
8: The Dangerous Dogs Act 25 years on: How effective has it been? | Claire Jones – bbc-dot-com
9: Bite club: fangs, gangs & the hounds of hell | Kack Grove – timeshighereducation-dot-com
10: How Fighting Dogs Are Trained: The Grim Reality | Patrick Lumontod – topdogtips-dot-com
11: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 – legislation-dot-gov-dot-uk
12: NO, A HIGHLY EDUCATED WIFE WON’T LEAD TO HIGHER CHANCE OF DIVORCE | ZACH SCHONFELD – newsweek-dot-com
13: Are College-Educated Women Bad Wife Material? – themodernman-dot-com
14: Why do college educated women intitiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men? | Lee Witt – quora-dot-com
15: Better-Educated Women Still Prefer High-Earning Husbands | The Editors – ifstudies-dot-org
16: Why Boys Aren’t Learning | Susan Murray – teachmag-dot-com
17: What Causes ADHD? 12 Myths & Facts | Kristin Koch – health-dot-com
18: Why Don’t More Men Go Into Teaching? | Motoko Rich – nytimes-dot-com
19: Elementary education: a female dominated field | Morgan Allred – byu-dot-edu
20: Do Teachers Really Discriminate Against Boys? | Erika Christakis – time-dot-com
21: A General Theory of Love | Thomas Lewis, M.D., Fari Amini, M.D., Richard Lannon, M.D., PG: 73-77
22: Divorce & the psychological damage done to fathers | Joshua A. Krisch – fatherly-dot-com
24: The evolution of emotion: Charles Darwin’s little-known psychology experiment | Ferris Jabr – blogs-dot-scientificamerican-dot-com