/lit/ - Literature

>>17479420
beta cuks and their obsession with women being mothers and men providing for the mom and her kids...

This is why i like feminists: they dont want men to provide for them

>>16730186
Just understand what women want., what they live for.
Women base their life on sex (free of charge since it is men who compete to give sex to women) but also want to be seen as non sex addicts, as caring about the world and other people.

Women are lucky because they get their cake and eat it too when they get pregnant (from all the sex with various men):
-they get all the rough sex they want from orbiters
-they get to play he caring mom devoted to her kids and be some helicopter mom, who want to change society and do the revolution ''for the sake of the kids''

This plus the merging of politics, entertainment and education in the secular republic means women are the most expose population in the bourgeois democracy and they get the easiest life, so they win on both sides: easy material life and easy moral life.

And this work only because women are devoid of moral knowledge.

one of the biggest red pills is the first time you realize that women experience literally no disconnect between saying X when it feels good to say X, and completely betraying and contradicting X five seconds later when it feels good to do that. women like to "try on" male-centric morals and virtues like children playing dress-up, but they don't actually know what it means to set up a virtue as an objective principle for oneself and then resist the temptation to break it in future moments when it stops being convenient and pleasant.

so if you ask a woman what kind of guy she values, she will blab on and on for hours about how noble she is and how she sees through superficiality and only wants sweet genuine men and etc., etc., etc. then five seconds later she'll completely contradict everything she said. the key thing to understand about women is that they don't perceive any difference here. from a man's perspective, you are thinking "but she said 'i only do X' and two seconds later she did 'non-X'?" this is because the fundamental modality of male consciousness is erecting principles and trying to follow them - even if you're a shitty man, it just means you're shitty and weak at erecting principles, not that the FUNDAMENTAL modality of principle-erection is absent. a woman's fundamental modality is "doing what i feel like." to a woman, that behavior is completely consistent: in the first instance, she did what she felt like. then she did what she felt like again. only a man perceives that the CONTENT of the actions was contradictory, i.e., would be contradictory if performed by a man. but for a woman whose primary stream of consciousness is "what do i want to do right now? :) perhaps i'll wear a ribbon in my hair tomorrow, tra lala!," no such contradiction occurred, or indeed is even possible.