Gynocentrism and Patriarchy Explained

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

Ok, so I wanted to make a post to explain my belief and definition of patriarchy and gynocentrism. If you have any disagreements or anything you would like to add, please give a reply because I hope this post could be used to lay the groundwork for any future useages of the term.

Now the word patriarchy is a simple one, so I’ll start off with that. It’s a word that is thrown around quite often.

The dictionary definition of a patriarchy is literally “a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.”

Now, feminists don’t use it in this way, feminists use patriarchy as “a system that benefits men at the expense of women”.

Feminists say we live in a patriarchy but there are many flaws to this argument:
1.) There are numerous areas where women have advantages over men, like gender quotas, selective hiring, more female scholarships, and the gender discrimination of boys in school.
2.) A woman isn’t obligated to take her husband’s name, in fact, she can even choose whether her child takes her name or takes her husband’s name
3.)Women aren’t obligated to marry or produce kids
4.) The discrimination against men in the family or divorce court systems

Taking these four factors, using either the dictionary definition or the “feminist” definition to describe the west as a patriarchy would be completely flawed. You see, and feminists know their definition is flawed, which is why they invented this thing called “patriarchy backfiring”.

The major flaws of patriarchy backfiring is simply this:
Feminists expect me to believe that men have oppressed women since the dawn of time, but somehow, just somehow, men are too incompetent to create a system that completely benefits men at the expense of women? Seems legit.

“Benevolent Sexism”: Because female privilege would be too ironic. Women are more likely see a man as bad or evil if he doesn’t act in a chivalrous fashion. No, both women and men are more likely to precieve a man as a sexist or a villain if he treats women the same as he treats men. This is literally one of the reasons feminism doesn’t make sense to me. They complain about microaggressions and how women don’t want chivalry from men yet the women who they swear they are defending would see a man as a bady guy simply because he doesn’t hold doors for women.

I rememvered another study that showed that 68% of women would reject a man if he said they should split the bill on a first date. So Question: How can feminists call this sexism when women are the ones perpetuating it.

Now another cop out feminism use is called “socialization”, that men socialize women into wanting men with big wallets and wanting chivalrous men:
1.) Why would men make it harder for themselves to earn women if their whole goal is reproduction?
2.) 50% of children are raised by single mothers, and the majority of elementary school and even middle school teachers are women. So who has more control in how children are socially constructed?

so now, since I handled the basic points about patriarchy, let’s move onto gynocentrism. I have seen this word getting tossed around numerous times by both MRAs and MGTOW and I feel that it’s being used poorly in some situations.

For example: Imagine ISIS or a terrorist organization comes takes over a village and they kill all the men but let the women live? Would this be a gynocentric system.

“Well, they’re letting the women live but not the men”, the interest of women is being put above men right?

No. Because more than likely the women are going to be used as sex slaves or raped. This isn’t gynocentrism. Because when looking at the long term view of women, they’re going to be raped. Their views aren’t being put above the interest of men because they are going to go through Hell.

True gynocentrism is the interest or view point of the women being put above men and children. Do we see this in society today?

Well, let’s take child support as a example. Now I know some people will say “well, child support is for the child right? Because…the child” no, it’s not. Child support is only granted when a woman requests it. And there is very little obligation for a woman to use the money on the kids.

Now, I know some people will come out of the wood works and cry these two points:
1.) well if the patriarchy didn’t automatically see women as care givers, then this wouldn’t happen: google tender year doctrine, and National Organization of Women call reform to the child support system anti-women
2.) Women pay child support too: This is what I would call the quantity fallacy, men pay the majority (90%) of child support, so a few women doing something that is done primarily by men doesn’t make it equal. And, how many women v.s. men go to jail due to backed up child support? How many men get their driver license revoked compared to women?

Another example: Throughout history, churches and the state have supported women for just being women. Is this gynocentrism?

It depends? Is it at the expense of men.

You see, women are a resource, they have kids. A man provides sperm but the rest of the process has to be done by women. Simply giving women money isn’t gynocentrism. Because, you need women to reproduce, if women aren’t reproducing, then your society is going to crumble or the village next door is going to enslave your kids in the future, so you need to support women in order to thrive. This isn’t gynocentrism, this is just logic.

Now let’s look at the alimony system. Is that gynocentrism? Yes. You see, think about Bradd Pitt and his current wife who is divorcing him. She’s going to get a large portion of his millions of dollars he made way before even knowing her, she is most likely not going to have more kids so she’s not going to contribute by reproducing. This is benefiting the woman at the expense of a man, this would be gynocentrism because there are no obligations or responsibilities given to the woman aside from gaining money from the man.

Now, this is just two of the many systems, if you look at divorce, the money being thrown at women in college, etc. you can find more example of gynocentrism in society.

So this is my view point of gynocentrism and patriarchy. If you have a counter argument or something that can help me, then please show it.

[Anonymous 43]

I think you pretty much nailed it amigo.

Good logical arguments, sound and valid points.

Women will hate it.

Preserving women at the expense of men will be our ultimate downfall.

If you want to really solidify your position, include population data and extrapolate over the next 100 years. This web site will help you. http://populationpyramid.net/world/2099/ we are headed for a long bullet shape, not good…more older people, fewer younger people.

I keep track of this to see if there will be a demand for elementary teachers in the future.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

You see, women are a resource, they have kids. A man provides sperm but the rest of the process has to be done by women. Simply giving women money isn’t gynocentrism

Women are not a resource and they dont provide one either because they have children. You cannot eat children. You cannot build your home with children. Well, their eyeb~~~~ might be useful. But still they don’t birth a resource or become a resource because of childbirth.

A resource is something that helps the family function. ie survive.

Men acquire the resources necessary for the families survival.

You kind of spin around points and make me dizzy.

What it is all about is CONTROL.

Who controls who?
How do you force a man to be what you want/need him to be?

Religion is about control.
Government is about control.
Feminism is about control.

What do you need to control? Force.

How do you force? You see it in our system. Laws, courts, authority, tanks, jail cells. But mainly you hold the children as hostages and blackmail the man. Duh.

Who do you force? Duh, the person that has resources or can get the resources the other needs to survive.

You can’t do two things at once.
A family requires two things. Resources and nurturing.

A father provides resources.
A mother provides nurturing.

That is why single mothers are horrible human beings when they say they can do it all.

Call it patriarchy. Call it gynocentrism. They are just bulls~~~ words.

If you are a man in our society you will be expected to do what they want. They will control you and call it equality. Only in our society could a person control the person who provides the resource needed to survive. ie live.

Think about it! Think about how f~~~ed up that is. The provider is s~~~. The nurturer is the most powerful creature.

What if the food stopped coming?

Peace brothers

[PhantomParticipant 3328]

DorkShit wrote:

What if the food stopped coming?

^This. Really enjoyed reading all of your post…

Like a f~~~in’ bullet train!

[Anonymous 3]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

let’s move onto gynocentrism. I have seen this word getting tossed around numerous times by both MRAs and MGTOW and I feel that it’s being used poorly in some situations.

For example: Imagine ISIS or a terrorist organization comes takes over a village and they kill all the men but let the women live? Would this be a gynocentric system.

Yes.

My definition of “gynocentrism” is that women are in the center, they are more valued, their opinions are more important, their needs are met.

If ISIS kills all men and spares women, then who is discarded and who is valued? Even the crazy religious extremists will spend their time and resources in women.
Granted, these women do not have their wishes and emotions “respected”, but THE MEN ARE DEAD! Let us compare both situations and see who has more privileges.
Men: killed with sadistic methods.
Women: spared, and their basic needs taken care of.

Now, many are going to scream: but they are beaten and turned into sex slaves!
So? They at least can chose. Many chose to kill themselves afterwards, others ended up marrying the ISIS soldiers.
MEN HAD NO SUCH CHOICE!

You know you are in a gynocentric world when even religious terrorists think men are disposable and women valuable.

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

DorkShit wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

You see, women are a resource, they have kids. A man provides sperm but the rest of the process has to be done by women. Simply giving women money isn’t gynocentrism

Women are not a resource and they dont provide one either because they have children. You cannot eat children. You cannot build your home with children. Well, their eyeb~~~~ might be useful. But still they don’t birth a resource or become a resource because of childbirth.

A resource is something that helps the family function. ie survive.

Men acquire the resources necessary for the families survival.

You kind of spin around points and make me dizzy.

What it is all about is CONTROL.

Who controls who?
How do you force a man to be what you want/need him to be?

Religion is about control.
Government is about control.
Feminism is about control.

What do you need to control? Force.

How do you force? You see it in our system. Laws, courts, authority, tanks, jail cells. But mainly you hold the children as hostages and blackmail the man. Duh.

Who do you force? Duh, the person that has resources or can get the resources the other needs to survive.

You can’t do two things at once.
A family requires two things. Resources and nurturing.

A father provides resources.
A mother provides nurturing.

That is why single mothers are horrible human beings when they say they can do it all.

Call it patriarchy. Call it gynocentrism. They are just bulls~~~ words.

If you are a man in our society you will be expected to do what they want. They will control you and call it equality. Only in our society could a person control the person who provides the resource needed to survive. ie live.

Think about it! Think about how f~~~ed up that is. The provider is s~~~. The nurturer is the most powerful creature.

What if the food stopped coming?

Are you joking or something? Children are the future of any society. Why do you think Germany and Sweden are appealing to much to immigration? Because, their birth rate is extremely low. You need children to one day take on the torch and keep society going. That is why governments since the beginning of time have protected women because childbirth makes them a resource. IF your society isn’t reproducing, but the society next door is, the society next door is going to kill you when you’re old and enslave your children, this is what made women a resource to society.

And I don’t even understand the rest of this argument, it’s like you just went off on a tangent here. Single mothers make s~~~ parents solely because they are incapable of raising a kid properly, if fathers just provided resources, if the father’s only role is to provide resources, that wouldn’t explain why single mothers produce the majority of criminals. Fathers didn’t just provide resources, they were also responsible for teaching boys how to be men while teaching their daughters how to be women, the mother’s only role was to provide nurturing.

Also these aren’t just bull s~~~ words, these words are important when discussing things like MGTOW to people.

Anonymous wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

let’s move onto gynocentrism. I have seen this word getting tossed around numerous times by both MRAs and MGTOW and I feel that it’s being used poorly in some situations.

For example: Imagine ISIS or a terrorist organization comes takes over a village and they kill all the men but let the women live? Would this be a gynocentric system.

Yes.

My definition of “gynocentrism” is that women are in the center, they are more valued, their opinions are more important, their needs are met.

If ISIS kills all men and spares women, then who is discarded and who is valued? Even the crazy religious extremists will spend their time and resources in women.
Granted, these women do not have their wishes and emotions “respected”, but THE MEN ARE DEAD! Let us compare both situations and see who has more privileges.
Men: killed with sadistic methods.
Women: spared, and their basic needs taken care of.

Now, many are going to scream: but they are beaten and turned into sex slaves!
So? They at least can chose. Many chose to kill themselves afterwards, others ended up marrying the ISIS soldiers.
MEN HAD NO SUCH CHOICE!

You know you are in a gynocentric world when even religious terrorists think men are disposable and women valuable.

That wouldn’t be gynocentrism, being raped at the end doesn’t equal gynocentrism. The woman’s wishes and commands aren’t the main point of the action so nope, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. Even if you want to argue that the women are getting a “better deal” at the end of the day, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. The woman’s values, wants, and wishes aren’t being recognized, the woman’s opinions aren’t being put over the man’s lives.

Imagine a farmer raises livestock, he feeds the live stocks, he protects the live stock from wolves or other predators. Would you argue that the farmer is a cow worshiper? No, because he’s going to slaughter the cow in the end. Are you seriously trying to say rape or death is a better option?

Here’s a video on the subject if you want to understand further:

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

Here’s the correct video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rErcVHhv10I

[Anonymous 3]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

That wouldn’t be gynocentrism, being raped at the end doesn’t equal gynocentrism. The woman’s wishes and commands aren’t the main point of the action so nope, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. Even if you want to argue that the women are getting a “better deal” at the end of the day, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. The woman’s values, wants, and wishes aren’t being recognized, the woman’s opinions aren’t being put over the man’s lives.

We just don’t agree in what level of the maslow pyramid we would place the gynocentrism.

I would say that it is gynocentrism when women are placed above men, at whatever degree we are talking.
Women had no problem in saying that the Chinese aborting female babies where misogyny.

The simple fact is that some are killed and others where not. Gender determined the outcome.

And your example of the cows is very usefull. The farmer is not a cow worshiper, but he will keep the female cows alive to reproduce, and kill most of the bulls for meat.
He will do this on SELF-INTEREST, because THE COWS ARE WORTH MORE THAN BULLS.

This makes perfect sense for the farmers, and we all think its normal. But I don’t think the bulls would agree its fair.

Nobody wants to be the disposable, worthless one.

I don’t.

[Anonymous 3]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Are you seriously trying to say rape or death is a better option?

I think you ment to say: Are you seriously trying to say rape is better than death ?

I don’t know. Its a personal choice. Most rape cases happen under threat of death, and women chose to live.
Slavery happens at the threat of death, and people chose to live, even under slavery.

So, whenever people have a choice, they appear to prefer to live, regardless of the circumstances.

So, do you maintain that keeping women alive and killing men is not a preferential treatment?

Was any one of these men offered a choice to live as a slave instead of death?

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

Anonymous wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

That wouldn’t be gynocentrism, being raped at the end doesn’t equal gynocentrism. The woman’s wishes and commands aren’t the main point of the action so nope, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. Even if you want to argue that the women are getting a “better deal” at the end of the day, that wouldn’t be gynocentrism. The woman’s values, wants, and wishes aren’t being recognized, the woman’s opinions aren’t being put over the man’s lives.

We just don’t agree in what level of the maslow pyramid we would place the gynocentrism.

I would say that it is gynocentrism when women are placed above men, at whatever degree we are talking.
Women had no problem in saying that the Chinese aborting female babies where misogyny.

The simple fact is that some are killed and others where not. Gender determined the outcome.

And your example of the cows is very usefull. The farmer is not a cow worshiper, but he will keep the female cows alive to reproduce, and kill most of the bulls for meat.
He will do this on SELF-INTEREST, because THE COWS ARE WORTH MORE THAN BULLS.

This makes perfect sense for the farmers, and we all think its normal. But I don’t think the bulls would agree its fair.

Nobody wants to be the disposable, worthless one.

I don’t.

I never said this was a completely fair and just system, gynocentrism is not fair, it has never been about being fair. But, at the end of the life, the cows are going to be brutally slaughtered for meat as well, they aren’t going to live some happy winter wonderland life either, in the end both members are facing a brutal death. That’s why this isn’t gynocentrism, because both cows and bulls are going to be killed.

Honestly, patriarchy is a much fairer system than gynocentrism. In gynocentrism men still have all their responsibilities and gender roles while women have no responsibilities or roles.

[Anonymous 3]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Honestly, patriarchy is a much fairer system than gynocentrism.

I don’t agree that it is has ever been fair to men.
The patriarchy established who had the power, but the moral and societal rules ruled the ruler.
We have a democracy, does it make society fair? Apparently men have 50% of votes, do we have equal strength.

So, why is this society is gynocentric?

Because even men impose gynocentric views and rules.

There was always a tyranny of the weak (women) whenever life is easy. There was always worst faith for men when it was hard.

It is said “women are raped or have to become prostitutes in wartime”.
Poor women!
But at least they are spared, and they always have something to sell. They are always the object of pity.

What about men?

They starve but have nothing to sell except their work.
They are killed preferentially and with greater degree of violence.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

That’s why this isn’t gynocentrism, because both cows and bulls are going to be killed.

No, it is gynocentrism because cows are worth more than bulls. Bulls are killed young, while cows live a long and productive life.

Nobody cares about the justice of gender in bovine population. Including me.

But nobody cares about gender justice in human population either, unless its pro-female.

Its the societal conditioning that makes all of us gynocentric advocates, even without knowing it.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Are you joking or something? Children are the future of any society. Why do you think Germany and Sweden are appealing to much to immigration? Because, their birth rate is extremely low. You need children to one day take on the torch and keep society going. That is why governments since the beginning of time have protected women because childbirth makes them a resource. IF your society isn’t reproducing, but the society next door is, the society next door is going to kill you when you’re old and enslave your children, this is what made women a resource to society

Childbirth makes them a resource? Strange, I thought it made them a mother?

You are getting tangled up. Women are not a resource to society. They are a consumer. They consume resources in order to nurture the children.

In order to obtain a resource a person must produce it. In a family dynamic it is usually the father that produces the resources necessary to survive.

The idea that giving birth makes a woman a resource is strange. It is actually just the opposite.

In order to keep society going you need to be able to produce more resources than you consume.

The idea that the society with the highest birth rate will then have the resources to conquer their neighbors is just wrong.

You and I just don’t live in the same Era.

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

It is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

Peace brothers

[PhantomParticipant 3328]

DorkShit wrote:

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

Resource: noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

staff = working people producing…kids do not work and produce, they consume & require nurturing.

kids do not function in any capacity that produces anything for an organization or a person.

Unless child slave labor is what the OP is talking about.

DorkShit wrote:

it is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

In the same boat with you regarding it. Makes no sense, unless it’s children working in a staff position.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Phantom wrote:

Darksith wrote:

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

Resource: noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

staff = working people producing…kids do not work and produce, they consume & require nurturing.

kids do not function in any capacity that produces anything for an organization or a person.

Unless child slave labor is what the OP is talking about.

Darksith wrote:

it is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

Laughing out loud. Yes, I know what the definition of a resource is. It is not giving birth to a child.

Morning Star is young and I get the impression that this whole mgtow thing is fun and games where you get to argue with Feminists on social media.

The reality is that he is a young man and he gets one chance. This isn’t a game. This is life. It all fun and games until childbirth.

The reality of our society will hit with the impact of a train. Then will the young man understand that patriarchy, gynocentrism, and feminism is all bull s~~~ words that are used to control the narrative.

Good luck

Peace brothers

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

Anonymous wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Are you seriously trying to say rape or death is a better option?

I think you ment to say: Are you seriously trying to say rape is better than death ?

I don’t know. Its a personal choice. Most rape cases happen under threat of death, and women chose to live.
Slavery happens at the threat of death, and people chose to live, even under slavery.

So, whenever people have a choice, they appear to prefer to live, regardless of the circumstances.

So, do you maintain that keeping women alive and killing men is not a preferential treatment?

Was any one of these men offered a choice to live as a slave instead of death?

You seem to be thinking under the logic of “if men aren’t benefited as much as women, then it’s gynocentrism”, you’re thinking under the sjw oppression scale when that’s not what this argument is about. If you see gynocentrism as a system where the treatment of women is better than men, then sure you can argue that this is gynocentrism. BUt my argument is that gynocentrism is a system that lowers men in order to benefit women. Is ISIS lowering men down in order to benefit women in this case? No, so it wouldn’t be gynocentrism. Trying to pretend that being given the option of rape or death equals gynocentrism is inherently ignorant and fallacious because the perspective of the women isn’t taken into consideration, women aren’t benefiting, as much as you might want to believe that given the option of rape or murder is benefiting women, it doesn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Honestly, patriarchy is a much fairer system than gynocentrism.

I don’t agree that it is has ever been fair to men.
The patriarchy established who had the power, but the moral and societal rules ruled the ruler.
We have a democracy, does it make society fair? Apparently men have 50% of votes, do we have equal strength.

So, why is this society is gynocentric?

Because even men impose gynocentric views and rules.

There was always a tyranny of the weak (women) whenever life is easy. There was always worst faith for men when it was hard.

It is said “women are raped or have to become prostitutes in wartime”.
Poor women!
But at least they are spared, and they always have something to sell. They are always the object of pity.

What about men?

They starve but have nothing to sell except their work.
They are killed preferentially and with greater degree of violence.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

That’s why this isn’t gynocentrism, because both cows and bulls are going to be killed.

No, it is gynocentrism because cows are worth more than bulls. Bulls are killed young, while cows live a long and productive life.

Nobody cares about the justice of gender in bovine population. Including me.

But nobody cares about gender justice in human population either, unless its pro-female.

Its the societal conditioning that makes all of us gynocentric advocates, even without knowing it.

How is it a long and productive life when the end result is death? you see, you’re not talking about gynocentrism in the sense of exploiting men to benefit women, you’re talking about simply women having a better deal than men. Two different things.

DorkShit wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Are you joking or something? Children are the future of any society. Why do you think Germany and Sweden are appealing to much to immigration? Because, their birth rate is extremely low. You need children to one day take on the torch and keep society going. That is why governments since the beginning of time have protected women because childbirth makes them a resource. IF your society isn’t reproducing, but the society next door is, the society next door is going to kill you when you’re old and enslave your children, this is what made women a resource to society

Childbirth makes them a resource? Strange, I thought it made them a mother?

You are getting tangled up. Women are not a resource to society. They are a consumer. They consume resources in order to nurture the children.

In order to obtain a resource a person must produce it. In a family dynamic it is usually the father that produces the resources necessary to survive.

The idea that giving birth makes a woman a resource is strange. It is actually just the opposite.

In order to keep society going you need to be able to produce more resources than you consume.

The idea that the society with the highest birth rate will then have the resources to conquer their neighbors is just wrong.

You and I just don’t live in the same Era.

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

It is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

In your first sentence, I’m very confused. Do you know how child birth works? YOu need women in order to produce children. Women are both a consumer and a resource, just like a cow is a consumer and a producer. Like, I can’t understand what your logic is here? What are you trying to prove here? You’re not even arguing against the central claim just side tracking the meaning of this post. You do understand that I was talking about throughout history right? Back when people fought with swords and shields, the biggest army is the one who won the majority of the time. Even today with machine guns and nuclear bombs, which could potentially cripple any society, you still need the man power to supply the weapons (creating, keeping them maintained and in battle ready condition, men to use them, etc.) and money (through taxes), you also need food and water for soldiers. A army needs money and the only way the military gains money is through taxes which have to be supplied by who? Men.

Phantom wrote:

Darksith wrote:

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

Resource: noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

staff = working people producing…kids do not work and produce, they consume & require nurturing.

kids do not function in any capacity that produces anything for an organization or a person.

Unless child slave labor is what the OP is talking about.

Darksith wrote:

it is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

You do understand that when children grow up and get older they are going to get jobs and work? Like, what kind of strawman argument is this? We both know that children are expected to contribute to society when they get older so what was the point of even trying to use this as a argument? Come on now, I expected better for a mgtow. This type of word play argument is something I would expect from a feminist.

[Bestieboy666Participant 2358]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Ok, so I wanted to make a post to explain my belief and definition of patriarchy and gynocentrism.

I’ll keep this simple. patriarchy = rise of empires. gynocentrism = fall of civilization.

You’ve made some very good points. However trying to use logic and reasoning to understand the mind of a feminist is as likely as trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese.

Women are so bad, if they changed the law so I kept the house, I still wouldn't marry one. I'd rather be homeless.

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

DorkShit wrote:

MGTOW Age wrote:

Darksith wrote:

Usually another member can post and explain the OP point so that I can understand.

Resource: noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

staff = working people producing…kids do not work and produce, they consume & require nurturing.

kids do not function in any capacity that produces anything for an organization or a person.

Unless child slave labor is what the OP is talking about.

Darksith wrote:

it is probably me but I can’t figure out where your logic is going.

Laughing out loud. Yes, I know what the definition of a resource is. It is not giving birth to a child.

Morning Star is young and I get the impression that this whole mgtow thing is fun and games where you get to argue with Feminists on social media.

The reality is that he is a young man and he gets one chance. This isn’t a game. This is life. It all fun and games until childbirth.

The reality of our society will hit with the impact of a train. Then will the young man understand that patriarchy, gynocentrism, and feminism is all bull s~~~ words that are used to control the narrative.

Good luck

Nice ad hominem shaming language pal. If you have to use someone’s age in order to attack them, then you know you have no argument. And you do realize that children are expected to contribute to society when older. Try actually arguing against my points without the ad hominems and straw man, let’s see if that’s even possible for someone like you.

If these words are such bull s~~~ why did you take the time out of your day to argue? I literally told you what this topic would be about by the title alone. If you want to just read multiple forum posts about “how much women suck” go to other posts, I wanted to discuss society.

[PhantomParticipant 3328]

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

And you do realize that children are expected to contribute to society when older.

Yes, when they are adults old enough to work a job, this isn’t rocket science here.

WHEN they are OLDER & when they CONTRIBUTE…and until then, they are not doing either, they are being a consumer that requires nurturing.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Do you know how child birth works? YOu need women in order to produce children.

Do you know how child birth works? You NEED the life in the blood provided by the MAN, his sperm, in order for a females egg to be fertile. Otherwise the egg is just an egg.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Women are both a consumer and a resource, just like a cow is a consumer and a producer

If the female is working a job, then yes, she is providing resources and also a consumer. A cow is a resource and producer, yes it consumes food.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Come on now, I expected better for a mgtow. This type of word play argument is something I would expect from a feminist.

Likewise, something we agree on.

[PhantomParticipant 3328]

DorkShit wrote:

Laughing out loud. Yes, I know what the definition of a resource is. It is not giving birth to a child.

LOL, I know you do…it was not intended for your benefit.

Edit: I am still laughing…made my day man!

[Morning_Star_MGTOWSpectator 72]

Phantom wrote:

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

And you do realize that children are expected to contribute to society when older.

Yes, when they are adults old enough to work a job, this isn’t rocket science here.

WHEN they are OLDER & when they CONTRIBUTE…and until then, they are not doing either, they are being a consumer that requires nurturing.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Do you know how child birth works? YOu need women in order to produce children.

Do you know how child birth works? You NEED the life in the blood provided by the MAN, his sperm, in order for a females egg to be fertile. Otherwise the egg is just an egg.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Women are both a consumer and a resource, just like a cow is a consumer and a producer

If the female is working a job, then yes, she is providing resources and also a consumer. A cow is a resource and producer, yes it consumes food.

Morning_Star_MGTOW wrote:

Come on now, I expected better for a mgtow. This type of word play argument is something I would expect from a feminist.

Likewise, something we agree on.

Like, what argument are you trying to make here? It seems like you have no grasp on common sense. They have to be kids before they can become adults pal. they don’t just come out as adults. So yes, children are a resource and a consumer because eventually they will grow up and be expected to contribute to society.

Your argument is like saying a calf doesn’t contribute to a farm because they just eat grass until they are big enough to meet market weight. A calf is still a resource even if it hasn’t contributed to the farmer yet, just like how children are a resource even if they don’t contribute to society yet.

Ok? Nobody is denying that you need the sperm. Lmao. What is your point here? The difference is that men can produce millions of sperm throughout their life while woman can only produce a finite amount of eggs for a limited amount of time. This is the whole reasons for biological gynocentrism.

Another word play, women are resources because they can have kids, you need women who have a finite amount of eggs to produce kids. this is what’s called biological gynocentrism. This is why societieis throughout time have cared for women, because of their child bearing capabilities. Like seriously, stop with this slave morality thinking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhaaVeYmWM4) and actually look at the facts.

And at the end there. Are you admitting you could’ve argued better? Because your whole argument reeked of slave morality.

[Author]

Posts