I remember a conversation with my mother from years ago, and at a certain point I mentioned (I think the subject was overall about economy, cost of life) that not a long time ago, in the past, a man alone could buy a house, and early in his life. To which she vehemently interejected "no, no, he couldn't" and she started babiling. Then I don't remember the rest but my point here is how she she seemed pissed at the mere idea that the man could be independant [from women]. But the fact of that matter is of course, that he could, right? As a pure result of the absence of women from the workforce and consequently the buying power being only in the hands of the man.
Similarly, a woman I was talking once ago, mentioning the financial "success" of her ex, suddenly had to put herself upfront by saying "but I was taking all the decisions", making it basically look as if she contributed, which of course as we know on this forum, is ridiculous: a woman is useless beyond her holes.
Another one once was relying on her beta provider but confessed me she would leave him one day probably. On another day, she also told me she started having a job. I asked, why? Why a job since her provider was making already a good living? Yes why after all? She answered something in the lines of: "so that I also pay some things, not only him, and to have my own money". Which basically translates to "I don't want to depend on him".
This is nowadays. These anecdotes are from the 21st century. Now if we were to go back to let's say a century or two centuries ago, would these women think this way? Access to finance is similar to hypergamy in a sense, both are markets, and in both cases there is a buying power and the idea of climbing the ladder and "buying" more and "better". In the past, were women inclined to think in such terms? I saw an archive of a video of a woman talking, maybe in the 50s or 60s or so, and she said it was perfectly normal that her role was to take care of the kids, that she didn't want to deal with the work outside, that was the matter of her husband. And I am pretty sure most thought that way, especially if you go multiple centuries even farther in the past.
There is this cliché nowadays, exemplified in degenerate artwork such as the series Desperate Housewives, that the woman would cheat on her husband with the good looking gardner, or postman. But in reality, did it happen historically? We all know about the hunting of witches right? These things happened in the Middle Ages. Women would call out another woman as a witch, and after the hunt, one was burnt alive on a pyre. Well that contradicts the hypergamist money driven cheating driven whores that we have today? The "hive" was anti and not pro emancipation (a "witch" would be an emancipated woman). Edit: I would like to add that feminism itself emerged among the Bourgeoisie, a middle where women were perhaps encouraged by weaker "men", simps, to educate themselves, thus it would confirm that the initial spark came from "men".
So my question is: are women intrinsically evil (evil as per the Blackpill knowledge that we have)? Or is it society that makes them this way? Remember that they are extremely conformistic, and practically devoid of logic/reasoning, they are followers, not leaders, if they seem to lead, they are actually behind a man, systematically, I have never seen an exception to this rule. There was once a debate, during the Middle Ages too I think, as to whether women had a soul or not. Now when educated men arrive at such debates, that tells you a lot about the nature of the female.
If you want my opinion on the subject, I'm inclined to think women are defined by society, and that their biology is just to follow society. The Blackpill tells us not what the woman really is but what it can be, under a degenerate society like the current one. You could equally say that men are savage cannibalists under circumstances that would lead to such behavior (let's say, a post apocalyptic world like in the movie The Road). So yes a man can be a cannibalist. Yet we are not, here, we are discussing instead of eating another human. What separates us from the inferior creature called woman is Evolution. We evolved to be more rational/logical, less immediate gratification oriented, more oriented towards sacrifice and commitment, which is why we will always be more moral than them, and there will always be less cannibalists than hypergamous whores. The enemy in my opinion is society, I see women as a dog, raised to hate us by a vile master: (Soyciety).
What is your your opinion? Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?
Similarly, a woman I was talking once ago, mentioning the financial "success" of her ex, suddenly had to put herself upfront by saying "but I was taking all the decisions", making it basically look as if she contributed, which of course as we know on this forum, is ridiculous: a woman is useless beyond her holes.
Another one once was relying on her beta provider but confessed me she would leave him one day probably. On another day, she also told me she started having a job. I asked, why? Why a job since her provider was making already a good living? Yes why after all? She answered something in the lines of: "so that I also pay some things, not only him, and to have my own money". Which basically translates to "I don't want to depend on him".
This is nowadays. These anecdotes are from the 21st century. Now if we were to go back to let's say a century or two centuries ago, would these women think this way? Access to finance is similar to hypergamy in a sense, both are markets, and in both cases there is a buying power and the idea of climbing the ladder and "buying" more and "better". In the past, were women inclined to think in such terms? I saw an archive of a video of a woman talking, maybe in the 50s or 60s or so, and she said it was perfectly normal that her role was to take care of the kids, that she didn't want to deal with the work outside, that was the matter of her husband. And I am pretty sure most thought that way, especially if you go multiple centuries even farther in the past.
There is this cliché nowadays, exemplified in degenerate artwork such as the series Desperate Housewives, that the woman would cheat on her husband with the good looking gardner, or postman. But in reality, did it happen historically? We all know about the hunting of witches right? These things happened in the Middle Ages. Women would call out another woman as a witch, and after the hunt, one was burnt alive on a pyre. Well that contradicts the hypergamist money driven cheating driven whores that we have today? The "hive" was anti and not pro emancipation (a "witch" would be an emancipated woman). Edit: I would like to add that feminism itself emerged among the Bourgeoisie, a middle where women were perhaps encouraged by weaker "men", simps, to educate themselves, thus it would confirm that the initial spark came from "men".
So my question is: are women intrinsically evil (evil as per the Blackpill knowledge that we have)? Or is it society that makes them this way? Remember that they are extremely conformistic, and practically devoid of logic/reasoning, they are followers, not leaders, if they seem to lead, they are actually behind a man, systematically, I have never seen an exception to this rule. There was once a debate, during the Middle Ages too I think, as to whether women had a soul or not. Now when educated men arrive at such debates, that tells you a lot about the nature of the female.
If you want my opinion on the subject, I'm inclined to think women are defined by society, and that their biology is just to follow society. The Blackpill tells us not what the woman really is but what it can be, under a degenerate society like the current one. You could equally say that men are savage cannibalists under circumstances that would lead to such behavior (let's say, a post apocalyptic world like in the movie The Road). So yes a man can be a cannibalist. Yet we are not, here, we are discussing instead of eating another human. What separates us from the inferior creature called woman is Evolution. We evolved to be more rational/logical, less immediate gratification oriented, more oriented towards sacrifice and commitment, which is why we will always be more moral than them, and there will always be less cannibalists than hypergamous whores. The enemy in my opinion is society, I see women as a dog, raised to hate us by a vile master: (Soyciety).
What is your your opinion? Are women a blank page? Or it is in their DNA? How come in the past they were barely any incels and holes were nonetheless content?
