patriarchy the new face of feminism aka gynocracie

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

So, guys, see how women just shed away the mask of feminism for a more up to date mask of “traditional roles” but the motivation behind their actions is allways the same, to extort money and resources from men.

As men wake up to the red pill more and more, expect this kind of behavior in the future.
They will just pretend to be traditionalists and kind hearted, gentle souls, to cover their wretched, heartless, soulless ways.

Be warned, go monk brothers!!

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/13/what-women-really-want-is-the-patriarchy/

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Well said.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Anonymous 25]

Looks like Nicole Russell who wrote the article hasn’t got the message that no f~~~s are given about what women want.

The clueless entitlement princess misses the point that what men want is important.

What kind of simp would date a woman like her. She’s creepy.

[Anonymous 3]

My view is that feminism is female nature defending patriarchy. Study dialectics to understand why.

[chirParticipant]

This is biology.
Women on the whole desperately want children. This is wired into their brains and hormones via DNA. Over hundreds of thousands of years we are seeing the apex of natural selection.
So in short we have:
Woman: capture apex male (with high resources) attention with high SMV, Lock him into cultural monogamy construct, Spawn children so male will expend resources on his progeny further locking him into exclusivity with her, use up all mans resources for raising of progeny.
Man: put on fetters and chains, Work until exhaustion and death, keep a hope that the children you raised were yours.

Is it any wonder that MGTOW developed in its many forms over thousands of years. We are the APEX MGTOW. For the first time in human history there is no consequence to a man deciding not to play the DNA game. In the past humanities survival as a species was not always a sure thing. “Stepping up” for a man meant having children otherwise our species might not make it. Now, with 7 billion and growing, men have an option. Nature made man more intellectually flexible and gave him more biologically independent reason. (which was needed for hunting and long term planning) Woman are still heavily tied to their dna which DEMANDS that they lock down resources (a man with resources) then pop out spawn and they will do ANYTHING to meet that need. (hamster logic)

Feminism says they need no man. However they are genetically designed to need one. Thus a s~~~load of women who bought into the “women need no men and can do anything on their own” are now lonely, childless or fatherless, and f~~~ing angry.

As MGHOW all I can say it that I have pulled up my chair, have my popcorn and am watching the monkey’s lose their minds trying to overcome millions of years of biology and natural selection.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[LurchParticipant 3866]

chir wrote:

Thus a s~~~load of women who bought into the “women need no men and can do anything on their own” are now lonely, childless or fatherless, and f~~~ing angry.

This I find it ironic that when these women DO find a man willing to put up with their s~~~, they are STILL ANGRY towards him, taking out their pent up frustrations on the poor guy.

The root of their anger is NOT having a man in their lives and when some poor sap beta, succumbs to his blue pill and hands her the gift of his resources, she slaps it away and beats the poor guy up because… they don’t have a guy!

Blue-Pill Virgin: Women hate me! That's what it is.
MGTOW Man: Hate them back; it works for me.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Her gender can eat crow.

[Dr. SableParticipant 1064]

Anonymous wrote:

My view is that feminism is female nature defending patriarchy.

Are you f~~~ing serious about those two statements you made ? Why don’t you explain how feminism is female nature and how it defends patriarchy, the patriarchy where +90% of men are getting the raw deal ?

Anonymous wrote:

Study dialectics to understand why.

To Study dialectics ? What bulls~~~ is that ? Is there a reason why you do not want to expand on it ?
When men state their reasons based on facts they do not rely on f~~~ing dialectics to get their point across.
Dialectics you will find everywhere in f~~~ing politically correct conversation, limiting what and how you talk and to top it off, how you are to think.

Zero Tolerance

[FrankyParticipant 2338]

What mask they choose to put on is irrelevant.
We’ve learned to see past it.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

There is no patriarchy.

Females are starting to miss the good Ole days.

Females are miserable because they are going against their nature.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Awww o my god im going to cry them a river..

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[VarunParticipant 2981]

chir wrote:

This is biology.
Women on the whole desperately want children. This is wired into their brains and hormones via DNA. Over hundreds of thousands of years we are seeing the apex of natural selection.
So in short we have:
Woman: capture apex male (with high resources) attention with high SMV, Lock him into cultural monogamy construct, Spawn children so male will expend resources on his progeny further locking him into exclusivity with her, use up all mans resources for raising of progeny.
Man: put on fetters and chains, Work until exhaustion and death, keep a hope that the children you raised were yours.

Is it any wonder that MGTOW developed in its many forms over thousands of years. We are the APEX MGTOW. For the first time in human history there is no consequence to a man deciding not to play the DNA game. In the past humanities survival as a species was not always a sure thing. “Stepping up” for a man meant having children otherwise our species might not make it. Now, with 7 billion and growing, men have an option. Nature made man more intellectually flexible and gave him more biologically independent reason. (which was needed for hunting and long term planning) Woman are still heavily tied to their dna which DEMANDS that they lock down resources (a man with resources) then pop out spawn and they will do ANYTHING to meet that need. (hamster logic)

Feminism says they need no man. However they are genetically designed to need one. Thus a s~~~load of women who bought into the “women need no men and can do anything on their own” are now lonely, childless or fatherless, and f~~~ing angry.

As MGHOW all I can say it that I have pulled up my chair, have my popcorn and am watching the monkey’s lose their minds trying to overcome millions of years of biology and natural selection.

I love reading deep scientific explanations like this. Very well written.

Yes, we are the APEX MGTOW. It is for the first time in history that so many homo sapiens have chosen will power over their instinct.. which is very hard because instinct is very very old when compared to will-power.. instincts were present billions of years before the human brain actually developed enough to harness strands of will power. Looks like it will overtake instincts for sure.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

“The former’s husband has become so passive-aggressive that the family’s finances are in disarray and their sex life is nonexistent.”

Still blaming men when feminism doesn’t work out. If the marriage works out, it was her smarter choice, if it fails, he is too passive-aggressive.

Traditionalism: Heads women win / Tails men lose.

No thank you.

No marriage
No children
No cohabitation

No deal. This is just the same s~~~ in a different package.

Frank V.

[FearlessMGHOWParticipant 1928]

Nope! F~~~ that heaping pile of stinking bulls~~~!

Tradcon or feminist women will f~~~ you over any chance they get if they find a man with more resources!

I also noticed they’re not fighting to change the gynocentric bulls~~~ laws on divorce and marriage. So they can go get a bunch of vibrators and cats for all I care!

Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius

[chirParticipant]

Dr. Sable wrote:

Jack wrote:

My view is that feminism is female nature defending patriarchy.

Are you f~~~ing serious about those two statements you made ? Why don’t you explain how feminism is female nature and how it defends patriarchy, the patriarchy where +90% of men are getting the raw deal ?

Jack wrote:

Study dialectics to understand why.

To Study dialectics ? What bulls~~~ is that ? Is there a reason why you do not want to expand on it ?
When men state their reasons based on facts they do not rely on f~~~ing dialectics to get their point across.
Dialectics you will find everywhere in f~~~ing politically correct conversation, limiting what and how you talk and to top it off, how you are to think.

I don’t think Jack understands what a Dialectic discussion is. Feminists use rhetoric arguments which are emotionally based and can be linked to hamster logic and magical thinking.

Here are the definitions for Rhetoric and Dialectic discussions. I think you will see which side feminists gravitate to.

Rhetoric, put simply is a one man show – a speaker trying to influence his audience through motivational words and bombastic language. His personal style makes the argument more effective in arriving at what seems to be the truth. It is a form of mass persuasion wherein a speaker addresses a large gathering or assembly. There is very little or no dialogue between the speaker and his audience. Rhetoric is uninterrupted and there are no arguments or counter- arguments between the people involved. In layman’s words rhetoric can be called pompous speech that aims at garnering assent to the truth being propounded.

Unlike in rhetoric, where the speaker is addressing a large audience, dialectic is a one on one interactive session wherein the speaker tries to convince the listener or at least convince him to accept his logical or philosophical argument through a series of questions and answers. The deliberation is reasonable and is limited to one speaker and one listener. It is more personal in nature and is a form of interrupted discourse. There are vigorous arguments, objections and counter arguments and objections leading to the arrival at a universal truth.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[Author]

Posts