/lit/ - Literature

>Did primal man care about female validation
That's actually a tricky question. Men always pursued female validation only in the sense that what females admired was being shaped by what qualities consistently proved to be those of the ideal males. Women didn't construct a set of arbitrary desires out of nowhere. What women wanted in men was shaped and given to them by observing men, who were in turn themselves shaped by the evolutionary pressures of nature. Yes, the females do the selecting, but to say that males crafted themselves to appeal to women and not to appeal to nature is stopping just short of reality. Women were merely acting as the emissaries of nature. We see this idea of woman having an innate bond with nature mythologically represented in every corner of the world. Here's the thing, though: that doesn't make a woman nature itself. If obtaining their validation comes at the cost of your own true fitness then their validation is meaningless. Are you brave enough to seize what you want? Are you smart and strong enough to defend yourself adequately? Are you sound enough to successfully raise children in this image? If these aren't the measures a woman is judging you by, then she is no longer an emissary of nature. She is merely an instrument of fleeting modernity, breeding mankind into a malignant state of neutered dullness. The fear the average man has of female rejection is ridiculous. This idea would make the modern woman screech about exceptions and generalizations, but the fact is that women are (as a group) unambiguously designed in both mind and bodies to be acted upon, not to act. They get their standards from observing men and they the get their value from how men perceive them. Men, meanwhile, get their standards from other men and their value from how nature perceives them. If you are pursuing the validation of women and not the validation of nature, you're making a clown of yourself. Until very recently, this was as taken for granted as gravity, so integral to reality it was almost never spoken of.

>>15136208
You've got the wrong idea. White guilt is not a personal shame that one feels for something done by people who've been dead for hundreds of years longer than they were alive. It's a general sense of distaste for white people. It's the unspoken cultural belief that you aren't allowed to say positive things about white people, you aren't allowed to feel pride in or seek out distinctly white things, and that any attempt to "diversify" your life a step away is automatically a step up from being plainly European. It's a subtle little line of code that's been slipped into our culture over the past 60 years or so that white=bad because whiteness is defined by privilege and oppression. Microaggressions? That's a concept that dripped out of liberal thought because this is how liberal thought operates. It's projection. They can't come out and say white people are awful without contradicting their ideals, so instead they use words and subtitles, tinkering away at setting taboos until they get what they want. They can't ask you to take a right onto Hate White People Ave, so instead they ask for three totally innocent lefts that are ultimately are just roundabout means to the same end.