Noticing Alot of contradictions and double standards in these feminist articles. LIKE WHY ARE WOMEN ENTITLED TO YOUR POSITION. AND SHOULDNT PPL JUST BE NICE IN GENERAL?
not anymore.
Im not a whiteknight
If they aren't making your kids or aren't blood related, no they don't.
Why Not? I mean studies show women like benevolently sexist men who are chivalrous.
Women don't deserve protection
D
No. It's a man job to protect his property, though.
i think youre talking about chads there. chads can act chivalrous and get pussy, we cant, which is why there is no point for us to help females.
it used to be an exchange
protection for sex
now they dont provide sex but yet expect us to provide safety
JFL
protection for sex
now they dont provide sex but yet expect us to provide safety
JFL
I was never an unironic misogynist, but they are doing a good job at changing that
I don't protect women because they don't want anything to do with me.
They can't have their cake and eat it too
They can't have their cake and eat it too
lmao not at all
Why Not women like benevolently sexist
Men?
Not to be a cuck but why not?
Why Not?
I mean technically u could still act chivalrous they would just ignore you.I don't protect women because they don't want anything to do with me.
They can't have their cake and eat it too
Last edited:
Not unless we are entitled to sex
Because they hate you
I mean they dont rlly hate us they are at mostly apathetic to us but they are disgusted by sexual advances though.
Yeah I mean that makes sense....why should women be entitled to male protection.
Have you been living under a rock? Are you good looking or do foids pay any attention to you? Because if that's the case this is not your place.
Imo
Historically, its estimated that merely 4U% or less
individual men ever engendered any scion, compared
to over 80% of women. Macrocosmic rule in nature and society : where the female is treated good, the male is treated lamentably, where the female is treated deplorably, the male is treated even worse. Malefactors are often truculent sociopaths/psychopaths, and those malefactors who are inclined to hurt a woman, will be far more bellicose to a man.
condones grievous violence against men, even travestying and mortifying men. Optically canvass the things depicted as either acceptable, or comical : travestying men for the size
of their penises, kicking men in the groin, cutting off male genitalia , male genital mutilation aka
circumcision being licit but FGM illicit even though MGM is magnitudes more prevalent. Nothing verbalizes of gender-predicated sexism and execration than violence directed at the genital type concrete to a sex, and thus anyone who cerebrates men are venerated more than women, is
iving a prevarication. If you ever laughed at this marginally genital violence, it
tells a lot about your character. If you cracked jests about genital mutilation (of men, since I've never aurally perceived of such morally low and depraved jests about women), ask yourself how you can overlook that cognitive dissonance of believing that men are given more veneration, or that rape is never justified but mutilation .Considering that a man has to work, earn and achieve something , to be considered worthy of mating with by women, the magnitude of effort and turmoil men have to go through to mate (with more than a moiety of all men being terminus of line), it isn't erroneous for men to expect a
sexual liaison with someone who expects him to put his own life in jeopardy for her. Recollect, women will frequently reluct sex even to husbands and long-time partners, so when women are disinclined to bear that much "entitlement" from men, why should anyman risk his life for a woman who's not even from his friend/family circle?
Women fixate on the sexual entitlement of men and verbally express how narrow or inhibited ways men cerebrate of women, about sexual objectification, but for women it's facile to downplay the paramountcy of sex because they can get laid so facilely, whereas men have to jump through hoops. A man can't even ambulate up to a woman he's intrigued with sexually, and ask straightforward - it's sexual harassment. Women have made initiating sexual
cognations so diKlcult for men, that despite sexual liberation, there are plenty of men without a consequential/salubrious sex life. Modern women have taken hypergamy to an incipient caliber, and while bigamy is mostly illicit, the well of men have serial relationships and/or espousements, and generally relish the company of multiple women, and these men you'll find on Quora jubilantly forfending women, verbalizing nice things about women, because well, they've been popular with women. Women are immensely colossal hypocrites in that sense, they repine So if you're among that 60% of men who women don'tlust after, chances are you've been turned down, relucted, neglected, reviled, labelled vile things like "loser" , "creep" and generally got nothing but contempt, or apathy from potential mates, this is the kind of question that does come to mind.
Unless a woman meets one of 5 F's : unless she's one of 1 . Family 2. Friend 3. F+'''ting you 4. Financing you 5. Victualing you
it's just not worth imperilling one's life for some unknown woman who's general posture toward men is that of apathy - more likely being misandry, and would scarcely take the same risk for men, especially when women have relegated you to genetic extinction. Seems algid hearted? That's the gelidness that a plethora of men are living, and you cerebrated it was privileged living.
Historically, its estimated that merely 4U% or less
individual men ever engendered any scion, compared
to over 80% of women. Macrocosmic rule in nature and society : where the female is treated good, the male is treated lamentably, where the female is treated deplorably, the male is treated even worse. Malefactors are often truculent sociopaths/psychopaths, and those malefactors who are inclined to hurt a woman, will be far more bellicose to a man.
condones grievous violence against men, even travestying and mortifying men. Optically canvass the things depicted as either acceptable, or comical : travestying men for the size
of their penises, kicking men in the groin, cutting off male genitalia , male genital mutilation aka
circumcision being licit but FGM illicit even though MGM is magnitudes more prevalent. Nothing verbalizes of gender-predicated sexism and execration than violence directed at the genital type concrete to a sex, and thus anyone who cerebrates men are venerated more than women, is
iving a prevarication. If you ever laughed at this marginally genital violence, it
tells a lot about your character. If you cracked jests about genital mutilation (of men, since I've never aurally perceived of such morally low and depraved jests about women), ask yourself how you can overlook that cognitive dissonance of believing that men are given more veneration, or that rape is never justified but mutilation .Considering that a man has to work, earn and achieve something , to be considered worthy of mating with by women, the magnitude of effort and turmoil men have to go through to mate (with more than a moiety of all men being terminus of line), it isn't erroneous for men to expect a
sexual liaison with someone who expects him to put his own life in jeopardy for her. Recollect, women will frequently reluct sex even to husbands and long-time partners, so when women are disinclined to bear that much "entitlement" from men, why should anyman risk his life for a woman who's not even from his friend/family circle?
Women fixate on the sexual entitlement of men and verbally express how narrow or inhibited ways men cerebrate of women, about sexual objectification, but for women it's facile to downplay the paramountcy of sex because they can get laid so facilely, whereas men have to jump through hoops. A man can't even ambulate up to a woman he's intrigued with sexually, and ask straightforward - it's sexual harassment. Women have made initiating sexual
cognations so diKlcult for men, that despite sexual liberation, there are plenty of men without a consequential/salubrious sex life. Modern women have taken hypergamy to an incipient caliber, and while bigamy is mostly illicit, the well of men have serial relationships and/or espousements, and generally relish the company of multiple women, and these men you'll find on Quora jubilantly forfending women, verbalizing nice things about women, because well, they've been popular with women. Women are immensely colossal hypocrites in that sense, they repine So if you're among that 60% of men who women don'tlust after, chances are you've been turned down, relucted, neglected, reviled, labelled vile things like "loser" , "creep" and generally got nothing but contempt, or apathy from potential mates, this is the kind of question that does come to mind.
Unless a woman meets one of 5 F's : unless she's one of 1 . Family 2. Friend 3. F+'''ting you 4. Financing you 5. Victualing you
it's just not worth imperilling one's life for some unknown woman who's general posture toward men is that of apathy - more likely being misandry, and would scarcely take the same risk for men, especially when women have relegated you to genetic extinction. Seems algid hearted? That's the gelidness that a plethora of men are living, and you cerebrated it was privileged living.
Only if she's your daughter, mother, or loyal spouse. This is rare nowadays, as most bitches don't want kids, and think loyalty is creepy or stifling.
So no, it is not my fucking job to protect women. I'll intervene with all of my fury when I see an animal being abused but it's none of my business if some bitch I don't know is getting slapped around by Chad; she'll probably forgive him and scurry back anyway
So no, it is not my fucking job to protect women. I'll intervene with all of my fury when I see an animal being abused but it's none of my business if some bitch I don't know is getting slapped around by Chad; she'll probably forgive him and scurry back anyway
Read all the things written there and DO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE 
Who cares what they like? Their opinion only matters because betas and simps protect women from proper retribution. "Benevolent sexism" in this case involves men falling on swords and protecting holes from their own self destructive behavior.
True
Yeah. Can’t have it both ways.
It's nobody's job to protect them. Fuck them.
Why No?
I mean a women can’t be non -traditional and expect a man to still be chivalrous.
But Women like benevolently sexist men...and arent they weaker.
Yeah Femenism and all but feminist still expect chivalry...its fucked.
Ok chad
D
foids want privileges, not equal rights
True
Let's unpack this. Hey females, you're not entitled to a man's protection, sweaty. It's the year 2020. Womyn are strong and empowered and independent now, haven't you heard? Dis why u femcel. Big yikes.
Man's job is fap to lolis
No.
Not at all
It is not. In the same way we don't expect women to give us sex when they don't like us, we shouldn't be expected to protect and serve women that give us nothing positive in return.
Being nice isn't enough to advance the foid imperative.
"Don't talk over women"
Why ? I mean, I get that talking over anyone is rude, but why make it about gender ?
I mean, what is the implication here ? That talking over women is bad, but talking over men is ok ?
Also, just fuck off. What are you going to do ? Put men in jail for over-talking ?
Can't stand these people. Human interactions are not always cordial. Sometimes, they are adversarial, and that means pushing oneself a bit. Deal with it.
PS. This seriously pisses me off. Social hierarchies exist, either explicitly or implicitly. You can't talk over your boss for instance, but he can talk over you. And with someone on the same level as you officially, there can still remain an implicit difference, which means that a guy can sometimes talk over an other guy and everyone will think that's ok, because the former guy is more respected than the latter. That can happen, but females don't want to accept that and instead they will throw the sexism card every time someone shows them a lack of respect. Why do they immediately assume this disrespect has anything to do with their gender ? Probably because it's easier than admitting you're low on the social hierarchy.
Why ? I mean, I get that talking over anyone is rude, but why make it about gender ?
I mean, what is the implication here ? That talking over women is bad, but talking over men is ok ?
Also, just fuck off. What are you going to do ? Put men in jail for over-talking ?
Can't stand these people. Human interactions are not always cordial. Sometimes, they are adversarial, and that means pushing oneself a bit. Deal with it.
PS. This seriously pisses me off. Social hierarchies exist, either explicitly or implicitly. You can't talk over your boss for instance, but he can talk over you. And with someone on the same level as you officially, there can still remain an implicit difference, which means that a guy can sometimes talk over an other guy and everyone will think that's ok, because the former guy is more respected than the latter. That can happen, but females don't want to accept that and instead they will throw the sexism card every time someone shows them a lack of respect. Why do they immediately assume this disrespect has anything to do with their gender ? Probably because it's easier than admitting you're low on the social hierarchy.
Last edited:
J
no
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
