/lit/ - Literature

>>14468255
Furthermore, in politics feminists are women burned by men or with especially strong penis envy, and due to their in group preference and little ability to empathize with men, endlessly demand special treatment and equal treatment in every category, unable to comprehend the pain society they deem patriarchal puts on men. Feminists will without blinking say 1940's America was anti women, while watching millions of men be sent off to die in battle.

Society, being filled with mostly beta men, gives in, and the feminists naturally resenting those beta men become more and more aggressive and anti male.

Things like "incel" becoming a new insult to men who disagree with women, is just a modern application of how women naturally shame beta's into their roles.

The current transgenderism and sex positive feminism is the result of feminism infecting schools and recruiting young women, who still in their sleeping around phase and not sufficiently burnt by their decisions, and desiring an ideaology that supports that, have introduced these concepts into feminism.

Gender critical TERF feminists, who are currently on the run and being cancelled, are the old school older feminists who plainly just hate men.

Slut shaming isn't politically correct, and with the advent of tinder women have a clear funnel that lets them sleep with high value alpha's more then ever. This is why you may have heard the rate of millennialis having sex is going down, it's actually going up for women, but going down for men it drags the whole thing down.

>>14468255
>>14468266
ok

>>14468266
Due to the nature of women, they fixate on high value men, and low value men, the majority of them, aren't even men, they don't exist to them.

Feminists fixate on the male role of society and things like sleeping with many partners, drinking, working, etc. and changed society to make them appropriate actions for women. Now women work more then ever, and since women can't control themselves as well as men they are more susceptible to drug addiction and alcoholism, which are both on the rise in women, along with anti depressant use.

Female happiness went straight down since 1970 because of these factors, probably was already going down before then we just don't have data, and though the data hasn't been collected past early 2000's, it's clear it probably fell off a cliff. Women can't take responsibility for their actions, and can't understand feminism has caused this, so they further project their anger on men and society as a whole, that is why communism is appealing to them.

My prediction is the next wave of feminism will be far more anti male then ever before. The current generation of women are going to burn themselves harder then any previous generation, because forced their muffled their actions like slur shaming or religion, are less active then ever before.

There will be nothing stopping the feminists most extreme behaviors since criticism of women is basically becoming a hate crime, and you'll be lynched virtually or in reality by an army of beta's.

In addition, endless amounts of women will look back at their sexual adventures with shame, and rationalize and invent false memories that they were pressured or raped. By then courts will have fully gone the way of believe women without evidence, which feminists are currently pushing them towards. This will create a new metoo type rebirth except not just for celebrities, and on a far more massive scale.

There won't be a civil war between men and women, by nature all these conflicts will be left unsaid. There are only women and beta's destroying themselves, and a small amount of Alpha's who don't understand or aren't involved, and conservatives who push for older principles that held these problems back, but not even realizing this and rather just pushing for them because they don't like change.

But the frustration of the situation will show itself in a seemingly unrelated disaster, or a unrelated disaster will occur and this situation will make it much much worse.

is this 2013

>>14468273
>>14468287
check mate op

Based. The Rational Male unironically changed my life.

>>14468292
>>14468287
>>14468275
>>14468273
>>14468266
>>14468255
INCEL ahahhahahahah

pendulum u fuck

>>14468275
What's stopping the masses of men from just saying "ayy fuck this mang" and going full traditionalist patriarchy? At the end of the day we don't really have to consider what women think or want do we? Use of force ultimately settles any dispute and men of course have the upper hand.

>What's stopping the masses of men from just saying "ayy fuck this mang" and going full traditionalist patriarchy? At the end of the day we don't really have to consider what women think or want do we? Use of force ultimately settles any dispute and men of course have the upper hand.

>>14468255

>Women by their nature desire to be impregnated by an alpha, and then get a codependent beta to raise their children and provide for them. This is why while 80% of women passed on their genes, only 30% or something of men did. At the same time they resent both the alpha and the beta for their behavior.

>>14468255
>>14468266
>>14468275
>>14468292

>>14468255
I for one, welcome our new Kigu overlords

>>14468255

>>14469763
I mean it's completely plausible. Think about it from the woman's perspective, all she needs is some dick one time and she gets uber genetics, as long as she can convince a lesser reliable male to help her provide for it. I think men might even have evolved to turn a blind eye to this because say the woman gives the beta guy a kid or two as well, then he's still winning, even if he's getting cucked.

>>14468255
If you care about this you're inherently a beta male

>>14468266
transexualism is healthy since it realigns the core values of the two sexes. terfs are toxic and should go. transgenders for men to be masculine and women to be feminine because they are competiting with idealized forms of men and women (neither men or women, but the desire for becoming).

>>14469628
It's not just "men vs women". There are men who were conditioned their whole life to be submissive to women. Conditioned their whole life to think that a woman is always right. There are men who think that patriarchy vs matriarchy is a question of the evil men wanting control vs the good progressive society of the good women wanting control.

I'm not OP, but to anyone looking to further reading material about these questions, I suggest The Way of Men, by Jack Donovan.

>>14468328
what's that book about -- in detail?

>>14468275
>There won't be a civil war between men and women, by nature all these conflicts will be left unsaid.
>But the frustration of the situation will show itself in a seemingly unrelated disaster, or a unrelated disaster will occur and this situation will make it much much worse
damn this sounds like the plot of a great novel, or at least a short story of real conceptual power

>>14470239
It consists of posts of the Rational Male blog. The first volume (called simply The Rational Male) is about how most males nowadays are plugged in some sort of "Matrix", where they are submissive to females and society as a whole.
The author focuses on how this "Matrix" affects the sexual/romantic relations between heterosexual males and females and how the "Matrix" affects the Male Life.
He also proposes solutions and explanations to the "Matrix" problem as well as solutions and explanations to the problems many males have in their romantic/sexual relations with females.
I think every guy should read it, even if the premise seems repulsive to him.

why are women

>>14471754
To add beauty to the world.

>>14471763
but the world is already beautiful and most women are ugly and cute twinks exist

>>14471006
Holy shit, how stupid do you have to be to fall for this bullshit?

Ive reached a point where i’m almost consistently surrounded by females at work (medical field), and at home. My best friend is Beta and he’s not smart enough to stop thinking with his dick long enough and realize he’s a bitch. The more I’m reading, the more I truly just don’t like women at all. I feel like i’m becoming asexual, which feels okay to me oddly. Any books on this feeling ?

>>14468266
>Things like "incel" becoming a new insult to men who disagree with women, is just a modern application of how women naturally shame beta's into their roles.
I love this meme. Just say Yes bros

>>14471006
>The first volume (called simply The Rational Male) is about how most males nowadays are plugged in some sort of "Matrix"
Fucking dropped. only morons think matrix analogies aren't incredibly dated and dumb

>>14471840

>>14468255
Oh yes, finally you explained the psychology of women, a few billion people who of course, being women, are all the same. Finally some SCIENCE has been made about it

>>14471890
The OP may be a misogynist, but you are a boring retard.

>>14471840
>he gets his information about women from books
You're thinking yourself into a hole that's gonna be hard to get out of, friend. You'd be better off talking to women and trying to understand their perspective, rather than swallowing redpills designed to make you resent the female sex. I was like you once, but I eventually realised it takes a conscious exertion of willpower to think outside of your particular (male) frame of reference. You want to become asexual because you'd rather not navigate the complexities of gender politics. Don't try and pull the wool over your eyes– you're giving up on women because you've given up on putting in the work, it has nothing to do with the readings (which are just reinforcing negative, fatalist thought patterns).

>>14471872
Is HDT a volcel?

>>14471929
Yes. He was.

>>14468255
>Sex at Dawn

Lit is sad place. Place for settled down beta men who hate being told truth about women.

>>14468255
>In society this shows itself in how women insist they want to be respected, but will endlessly fawn over rappers, drug dealers,

you are so insecure it's hilarious

>>14472017
feel free to fuck off anytime :^)

>>14472184
Not an argument roastie

>>14471797
>most
Most are here because of genetic stubbornness related to survival. Don't waste your attention on ugliness.

>>14471903
If you could figure out "the complexities of gender politics" yourself what would prevent you from putting it to paper? Dismissing text over personal anecdotes is ridiculous and unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, talk to women is a universally horrible idea as they are empirically less intelligent

>>14472295
Did I say I'd figured it all out? I said it takes a conscious effort of willpower and rational thought, and that its far more challenging than passively absorbing someone else's ideas about women. I'm not claiming to have reached enlightenment, I just know that only reading texts like the ones in the OP are simply feeding your own confirmation bias, its not a balanced reading list in the slightest. Read as many books about the colour red as you want, but you're not going to know what "redness" is actually like until you seek it for yourself. You can learn about the properties of the waveform, all of the various objects that are red, all the different shades, etc.. but if its a black and white book without pictures then you won't ever have an accurate sense of the colour.

>empirically less intelligent
And you're unironically accusing me of making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims?

>>14472295
>>14472351
also, if you are OP and you genuinely believe that penis envy is anything except freudian woo-woo, then I'm amazed you think you can defend yourself as empirical

all of these theories are interesting, but they don't really explain how the average chick will get knocked up by a clown

>>14472351
Women have an objectively lower mean IQ AND standard deviation which results in a dramatically lower number of intelligent women compared to men. This isn't up for debate, tests have been done repeatedly for decades. Denying women's objective inferiority only outs you as a retard

>>14472428

>women's objective inferiority

yet 99% of men go to work every day to please a woman

>>14472488
Because men aren't competing with women. They are competing OVER women with other men. Incel retards are too stupid to get it. In a liberal society they can't get any becouse women don't see value in them. In conservative society they wouldn't get any becouse those women's fathers and brothers wouldn't see any neither. In Ancap society they wouldn't get any becouse they would be poor. In anprim society they wouldn't get any becouse they would be dead. In futuristic technofascist one they wouldn't get any becouse they would be euthanised for being of poor genetic stock.

>>14472548
What about a state socialist one.

>>14472572
They would be thrown into a gulag for being lazy.

>>14472372
Uhm clowns have big feet my dude

>>14472372
Whats there to explain? Women fall for "fixing the bad boy" routine

>>14472548

so if reduce this to something useful, all of the competition over women is to placate the male ego

>>14472581

haha, that makes sense

>>14472548
Hence why men are inferior.

>>14472597
>so if reduce this to something useful, all of the competition over women is to placate the male ego
No, it's natural selection. Women are final selector. In previous generations those failed men would die in the wild, be too bussy with finding enough resources to feed themselves or be fell by common cold. They wouldn't even start thinking about finding someone. In nice and cozy modernity they are allowed to live and that creates in them this delusion that it's enough to let them propegate.

>>14468255
>>>/r9k/
>>>/pol/

>>14472615
At the very core of it woman can have very bad at everything and still technically have social value since you can put your dick in her and with some luck 9 months later a small you will pop out. Default value of a random man is below zero. He needs to PROOVE to the outside world that he is an asset and not a bourden.
Imagine postapocaliptic tribe or band of maruders. They are going as far as capture women but they will be hesistant to let any random dumbass join them. He is going to require food and shelter. What can he offer in return?

>>14472631

i'm getting tired of this, but all i'm trying to point out is that the idea that women are 'inferior' to men keeps plenty of men who aren't capable of thinking in bondage. there are plenty of men in history that were unmarried virgins that have reached the apex of power. it isn't for zero practicality that all of the great monastics and religious leaders have taken a celibacy vow. the typical man's greatest fear is death, hunger, and the inability to continue his reproductive legacy, etc. society wouldn't even exist without the so called 'beta males' that you're disparaging, since the labor power of a sterotypical beta male is just as useful or even more useful than the stereotypical alpha, so any feminization/domestication of men by society is essentially it's intended effect. so the majority of actions that a man will take in life will be to offer himself as tribute to this feminine power. people confuse a man using brute strength to harm or rape women as a sign that males are superior to women, but this just isn't so. that happens when a man feels like he is so powerless that he has to lash out violently to get what he wants. women own men, there just isn't any getting around it

>>14472680
You are confusing things. "Betas" still get laid. In fact majority of men who ever lived are betas. Society with nothing but alphas would be simply impossible. There can not be be a society of nothing but natural born leaders no more than there can be a man who is nothing but brain. Society needs just few so-called alphas. That's enough. Then it needs hordes of those that will follow them. The last grup, the ones whining about not getting laid on icelandic panflute collecting newsletters are not "betas". They are genetic defects. They are mistakes that society out of it's kindness cares enough that they won't just die.

I refuse to fall into the beta or the alpha category. Men can either be egotistical maniacs or insipid cowards, according to TRP fags.

Fuck that.

>>14468266
>>14468275
On the internet this seems true, but really I don't think you're right. Both women and men want a desirable partner, neither are the perfect sex you want them to be. The reason there's not going to be any gender war is that men are just as degenerate as women.
Most women aren't turbosluts and don't become addicted to abusive men. Look at the majority of relationships and they're much less radically sexually promiscuous than what you're describing.
Also most women don't know much about feminism and just go with general trends. Most women will say they are feminists, but just live the way they would have lived otherwise.

Also the amount of trad men and women is about the same I think. There are big parts of both the sexes that want their partner *not* to have been sexually promiscuous

>>14472712

i don't actually believe in the alpha/beta bullshit, i was just trying to use those words to communicate the idea. oh well, you might learn one day

ITT: People applying Darwinian autism to past societies and future trends.

>>14472788
>darwinian evolution doesn't work on humans because it makes me uncomfortable

>>14468255
>Women were debunked decades ago
Then from who's cunt did I came from?

>>14472792
More like, darwinian evolution is not metaphysical fact. It is retarded to take something that was meant to be a screw driver and use it as a hammer.

>>14472815
Yeah, it's just a fact. People don't fuck because of some magical mumbo jumbo. Fucking exists so there is procreation.

>>14472796
debunked cunt

>>14472824
What does that have to do with anything?
Fucking exits because there is procreation, that is begging the question?

>>14472853
What makes darwinian natural selection invalid tool to apply?

>>14472858
What makes it a valid tool to apply to the situation? I find Darwinian evolution to be problematic from an epistemological point of view.
I'm willing to surrender the fact that thinking about gene spreading and etc may be useful in the context of evolution. However, I'm not willing to accept that one can derive categorical classifications of humans with it.

>>14472876
>darwinian evolution doesn't work on humans because it makes me uncomfortable

>>14472886
> Darwinian evolution works on humans because I said so.

>>14472890
>It works on all animals but not on humans because reasons.

>>14472428
>equating IQ with "objective" inferiority
If IQ was the only measure of success, maybe, but it isn't. We don't live in a virtual noosphere, various evolutionary advantages require the right context to work in situ. Your argument moved from "women are less intelligent" to "women are objectively inferior", which indicates to me that you're a presumptuous moron.

>>14472905
I said it works on animals in simple situations. The field you are thinking of is called evo psych.

Are you really saying that you can derive categories of humans from evolutionary principles that are metaphysical truth?

Can you prove to me that Darwinian evolution somehow can escape the problem of induction? I

>>14472792
>my appeal-to-nature is relevant and justified in questions about how society ought to be structured
Just stop

>>14472924
Where did I mention how do I think society is out to be structured? I'm merely saying what is.
>>14472921
I'm not deriving any "categories". If you weren't such an up-your-own-ass pseud you might notice tactical use of quotation marks in my post. But I guess you were too filled with impotent rage for that.

>>14472946
You replied to my post, dumb ass.

If you think males can be sorted into alpha and beta then I have bad news for you.

>>14472572
To every man his slampig comrade.

>>14472946
You’re at once espousing the virtues of IQ, and yet you dont believe IQ has the potential to raise us above our bestial natures? What a miserable outlook. Society is not Darwinian, that much is obvious to any civilised human being living in a democracy. You’re using evolution to model or recapitulate what you think civilisation “looks” like, but it’s faulty from the get go because it bears a profound lack of imagination and moral direction. Why have all that IQ if you’re just going to fall back on evolutionary mechanisms?

>>14472998
>You’re at once espousing the virtues of IQ
No, I wasn't.
>that much is obvious to any civilised human being living in a democracy
Never heard about such a person.

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.

>>14473056
You probably would spend this time more productively by waxing your carrot.

>>14473056
>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

>>14473056
Was Wininger right then?
Is the fundamental difference in women the fact they can't have a character extending in time but are purely instantaneous creatures?

It’s really hard to hate women for X reason when, if you take a step back, X reason usually applies to men as well. I’m sure that every sex has its own flavors of dysfunction that everyone else should be aware of, but hating one sex or another detracts from the big picture—we are living in an age of degeneracy and vice, where most people stray from virtue like it’s the plague.

Forget about finding a good woman—finding a good PERSON is difficult. There are a lot of “nice”, “funny” and “interesting” people out there, but there ain’t many real stand-up ride-or-die niggas.

>>14468255
>penis envy
Freud was debunked decades ago

>>14468333
See kids? This how you treat tripfags, ignore them

>>14469628
I don't really bring up these topics with my blue-pilled male friends, but a couple of times when I have I invariably encounter hostility. I'll say something like 'well men have it quite rough in today's sexual market place, with tinder and everything' and they will instantly reply with 'well, what about women? They have it even tougher, and men have for centuries oppressed them!'

And that's coming from guys who are barely getting laid these days. The conditioning is so strong that they'd rather overlook and rationalise their own present situation (they have to put a disproportionate amount of effort to get laid with a so-so, very ordinary female) than to acknowledge that they've been lied to about how men are bad and women are perpetual victims. The situation is dire and it won't get any better in the next few years.

*millenia ago
leniency of womeme are a modern phenomenon.

>>14468255
Incel lord detected. Imagine putting this much effort into understanding women when you could just be chill and fun with the cool ones. Enjoy lonliness OP.

>>14469806
>tfw it's an instruction manual

>>14473056
who hurt you

>>14472680
This reminds me of the joke where an alien race visits the Earth and concludes that dogs are in charge because humans follow them around and clean up their shit.

i don´t care, i just want a gf