/lit/ - Literature

>>20853509
Most of my kids are femoids and i dont cope. I barely give a fuck about any of them and just focus all my attention and guidance on my sons.

>>20853533
based but why? do you not fear them becoming whores and tarnishing your name when you neglect them?

>>20853533
Genuinely sad that those poor girls have such a shit dad that you are

>>20853546
>>20853683
They cant carry on the family name and cant do actual sports so they are essentially useless. I love them and think they are cute but thats about it.

>>20853509

Why willingly adopt a world-view that can only cause pain for yourself?

>>20853546
Hed have an easier time fighting the tide

>>20853719
I dont want to adopt this, hence I'm asking people more intelligent than me to refute this logically, which has yet to happen somehow

>>20853736
Women don't have to put any effort in to reproduce. You are guaranteed to keep your genetics going, family name be damned.

>>20853736

I wouldn't say its an issue of logic. It is infact a logical conclusion within its world-view system. What you need to reject are the premisis and value assumptions it is built on.

One of resumptions it makes that you need to accept as true for this to make sense:
- that you can be cucked in a non-sexual relationship

Maybe meditate on that one first. Then you can graduate to thinking about if women are people in their own right or just sex-objects for men.

Another thing to think about is: how rotted is your mind from 4chan culture that you can't even enjoy the starting of a new generation of your family? All you can think about is your daughter as a sexual object. You can't think of the joy of being a grandfather. What kind of an incestuous fucking porn-sick state has this site put your mind into?

>>20853695
I would kill you if I could.

>>20853695
> cant do actual sports so they are essentially useless

This is the most hilariously American thing I’ve ever read and I will no doubt steal it for a short story one day

>>20853509
Why are you thinking about your daughter's sex life

>>20853944
kek, what? that is not at all what the op is about

>>20853509
>even the so called "intellectual boards" cannot refute him
this is the logic that DESTROYED 4chan

>>20853953
It is, though. The image explicitly states he thinking of his daughter getting ravaged by other men's dicks.

>>20853509
I cannot comprehend why would you not fuck your own daughter? You have pussy in its prime every day of year under your own roof and you wont do shit with it? You have to be faggot to not fuck her

>>20853933
Like you yuroshits and thirdworlders dont pimp your kids just so they can play as substitutes on some pro soccer youth team. Miss me with that shit you fucking homos.

>>20853509
1.Why does this apply only to daughters and not sons, in your eyes?

2.The bodies of your children will be very enjoyable when you are old and need their help having your diapers changed.

3. Even before that, the mere existence of your children should bring you joy. Their life should feel more important than yours.

>>20853961
Is that all your mind picked up from it? In that case, you're very bad at making logical inferences. The image is not about a daughter pleasing another man, but about putting enormous amounts of time & recourses into something that logically appears to be a waste.

>>20853509
>Can anyone refute this logically? I can't.
You're supposed to sell her to a rich old fart whose son needs a wife.

>>20853988
OP should read up on families that work together like the Rothschilds and the Arnaults (owners of luxury brands like Louis Vuitton). In a good family, the trust is strong enough to make relatives ideal business partners.

Even if OP isn't a businessman, having someone to take care of you in old age or if you get crippled makes having kids worthwhile.

>>20853979
All other question stem from your first question and the answer to it can be found in the consequences of China's one child policy and the reasons for its consequences: given a choice of having a son or a daughter parents preferred to have boys, and aborted daughters.
It might be tempting to call Chinese people insects, seeing a pragmatic monolith in a place where westerners would have a mellow ether of compassion, but it is this pragmatism that would take place anywhere in the world if the inhabitants of that part of the world were subjected to the same conditions. When a person is given an imperative consequences of which will directly affect their life a person always tends to reason in more practical terms, on nature's terms, and it's at this time when even the people who would otherwise disagree are forced to admit to themselves the unpleasant truths, because all rational reasoning tells them that such a choice will be of more benefit to them. And it is, then, simply a rational, natural conclusion that a man is of more benefit to a group than a woman. He can defend, produce and procure more recourses, and mind that I'm not talking about hunting down some wild animal, Chinese didn't pick boys over girls because they needed to replenish their hunter-gather ranks, they picked boys because men always produce more "benefit" - whatever it may be, in any form of society. "Women and children first" – a moto that was derived from the neolithic idea of women being valuable to a tribe because a tribe with more women in it would have a chance of overtaking the other tribe simply in terms of numbers, because more women = more children. Today, the only reason why women might be first to be saved from the sinking boat is only out of courtesy of men.
So, given a choice of having only one SOMETHING, rational reasoning of Chinese led them to choosing the most practical SOMETHING, in our case that SOMETHING is a "child".
I sincerely pity women and hope that situation changes and women can finally be of as much benefit to society and men are, but until then OP's point stands and I'm forced to be gay.

>>20854116
You are taking an example from the population that comprises less than 1 percent of global families. Sure, if you're an aristocrat yourself and you have a daughter, and she is marrying someone from an aristocratic family then you do not need to worry about the time and recourses you spend raising her, she was a binding force between two strongholds and made them even stronger, however most western(and not) families are not like that and I, personally, have rarely seen or heard of a beautiful woman in the west that would have some aristocratic aspirations, but it's rather a personal observation, since, I hope, those that do are likely modest individuals and what we see and hear is largely coming from the loud mass of mediocrity.
Given that most families are not "wealthy" and having a child to them is a tough decision given which they can only hope for the best outcome, see >>20854186

>>20854265
Women only need to work on their appearance and pick a good mate to become aristocrats. Picture related, OP's 5/10 daughter just needs to marry an aristocratic failson like Elliot Rodger to propel the entire family into wealth.

>>20853533
>I-I-I barely give a fuck
COPE
O
P
E

>>20854265
If OP is poor, a daughter might be more beneficial than a son. The son would need to build his life from scratch (which is difficult when you don't come from money) but the daughter could easily marry up. And then when OP is senile, the daughter's rich husband could buy him the softest silkiest diapers to poop in.

>>20853509
You will never have children anyway, so why worry about it?

>>20854434
Femoid moment. Spilling seed into your smelly cunt is no great achievement.

>>20854440
I'm a man with 2 (two) children. Take the L bro.

>>20854443
My kids can beat the shit out if your kids. Checkmate faggot.

>>20854456
Yeah well my Dad would kick your dad's ass, queer.

>>20854472
Your dad is a boomer pussy and raised you bitchmade. Cope harder

>>20853988
Not that guy, but there is undeniably a strong sexual component to the image. The whole premise is built on the belief that the only purpose a woman in life has is to be sexually used by a man, and that a woman's sexuality is shameful (unless that man is you of course, but let's instead focus on plausible scenarios). Once you reject that premise, it falls apart and nothing about it makes sense anymore. Just out of curiosity... do you think about your mother like this, as someone whose sole purpose was to be someone's cum sleeve? I mean, she was at some point, at least once, otherwise you wouldn't exist, right? But she presumably also raised your dumb ass, and hopefully did some other stuff worth mentioning except being fucked by your dad.

>>20854556
society basically tries to brainwash you into thinking that the only purpose in life is to consoom, and sex is probably somewhere at the very top of that list of consooms. if you've ever tried to think "am I strong enough to raise children who themselves will be strong enough to fight back an evil society and its temptations" and doubted your resolve, you get OP's image.

>>20854556
and yes, being nothing but a hunk of meat to be tossed around and disposed is degrading. any father that's comfortable with their daughter being like that is no man at all. I would even go as far as to say that they're evil or at least cartoonishly retarded about how humans work.

>>20854355
Your example is contrived and you now it. It sounds nice, but when you start to examine each part, you come to realize that it doesn't works like that in the real world. You are proposing an idea of what "poor girl - rich guy" relationship is like, but it's just an idea of it. In reality an "aristocratic" men wouldn't settle for just any pretty girl from the street. And if, say, some rich, but stupid(which is rarely a case as much as many like to think otherwise) man picks up a fucktoy "from the streets" why would he ever care about the rest of her family? We have to envision here someone who is rich, stupid, yet benevolent(which is not a quality of stupid people) enough to care for the family of this prostitute he found. "Aristocratic failson" is more of an image created by movies and wishful thinking, but is not the case in the real word. (Sure, you might even find one or few examples that would support your idea, but those are exceptions, not the rule.)
>>20854412
This idea seems more reasonable, and I'm sure things like that do take place sometimes, but it doesn't stand on too firm of a foundation itself, it is rather an exception. Imagining that OP is poor, how often do you see a woman from a poor family with good looks? Poor people get poorer, that's a law of nature, exceptions prove the rule, beautiful women do not want to trade their most valuable asset for Love that comes from someone "poorer(in most general terms)" than them, however pure and gentle that love may be, so the beauty is rarely passed "down". But instead it's the productive men who become wealthy > They pick beautiful women > Beauty is passed on to children > Children, being born into a wealthy family, are more inclined for success in life, boys grow into men that also pick beautiful women. Beauty is accumulated. Wealth is accumulated. Good habits are accumulated. Success is accumulated. That is literally how aristocracy gets made, but it all starts with a productive man. This is why physiognomics are correct. Beauty is a sign of progress having taken place – if not at the present moment – at least once some time in the past. It's just a natural law "of progress". So, if I were a poor OP, and I'd ask myself "whom would I prefer", I'd certainly pick "yeah, a boy".
(And of course I hope no autists will cherry pick cases of hypergamy having taken place, because hypergamy is a slow process, and we are talking about having some rich guy buying me comfy diapers PRONTO)

>>20853763
You can be cucked even if the woman doesn't know about you if you're in love with her and some chad scoops her up. The cucking by mothers, sisters and daughters is subconscious enough in most people to be easily coped out of their conscious minds. And no, women aren't people in their own right.

>>20854556
>>20854606
This nigga wrote a whole ass retarded essay just to say hes a fag

>>20854623
> "And I'm not! I prefer women!"
shameful.

>>20854631
Gay dindt read ratio die slow faggot

I've come to the sobering realization that the leftists were right all along about "right-wing" reactionaries being just dysfunctional, bitter incels. There is no great white man's rage to restore the West to its former dignity and power, it's all just frustrated virgins lashing out at society because they've isolated themselves from their peer group.

>>20853509
You’re essentially raising a mother. A mother will spend the most time with her children and therefore those children will pick up her characteristics.

By having a good quality daughter you are basically ensuring good quality grandchildren.

That is if you wanna look at the purely objective benefits.

Also why would you care about how your childrens sex life turn out? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with their competence and contribution to society?

If I had a daughter I’d just raise her in way that I know she would contribute to whatever I value. I don’t care who she fucks aslong as she contributes something of value.

>>20854635
Woman moment

>>20854635
That's retarded. I gave up sex because I thought it was demeaning for everybody involved. I'm a sperg, yes, but I'm very good-looking so I can easily get on Tinder, match with a broken big tiddy chick and get a nut with a couple days.

>>20854556
>>20854576
No doubt there is a sexual component to it, but I was arguing that it plays a much smaller part in the overall meaning, and I still stand by it. My daughter's sexual activity, if promiscuous and careless, is only a force that sets in motion the underlying movement that causes my dissatisfaction.
> The whole premise is built on the belief that the only purpose a woman in life has is to be sexually used by a man
You put it very bluntly, and "used" sways the argument in your favor and I don't subscribe to the meaning you give to it, but I'd say: yes, in the end of all ends, it is. This is the predicament most women will end up in. And since we aren't talking about exceptions the question then becomes "with what man?".
Of course I'd be glad if my daughter, imagining I'd have one, became a renewed artist or a scientist, achieves greatness in general, and I would certainly try to instill good habits while raising her, but as this(>>20854573) anon put it, there's only so much I can do to protect her from the evils of the world and women are rather susceptible to the temptations as they don't have much time, their beauty withers quickly and they naturally, consciously, and I'm sure subconsciously as well, want to make most of it, resulting in rash decisions and the fucking of a "bad boy" who then dumps her: that's my girl right there, cummed over and used up, that's the child I lovingly cared for and put so much effort into raising.
So, I'd rather have a boy and make him into a man who sways the world to his will, if he fucks, good, if he doesn't that's his thing to figure out, but "aged like milk, aged like wine" - I am sure you know, he, being a man, is dependent upon his strength of will rather than a short-lasting delight.
(And there are, of course, women with a will for greatness and power, they are probably the ones who end going into politics, but it is, again, and exception, not the rule.)

>>20853736
its not something you can refute if you view your daughter as something that can be conquered and is so stupid as to become some mans slut for the rest of her life. if you dont want to see fatherhood that way then changing your perspective on sex from an act of domination to a mutual act of love and service to humankind is necessary (i.e. you are creating life and furthering mankind instead of just fucking for the sake of it). if you only see the mother of your child as a woman you "ravaged" then you're obviously not at an age where you're getting off in anything other than a tissue.
slightly off topic but id suggest you look into people overcoming their Madonna/Whore complex if you want to find a woman you can respect. would suggest you try to avoid the multitude of articles that are just libs complaining and not figuring out any solutions.

>>20854700
Sure

>>20854875
Post Structuralist french rapists truly ruined several generations of women for men. Contrary to what your disgusting dyke professors tell you, men have no interest in hurting women.

>>20854700
of course you COULD get a gf anon if only you applied yourself ;)

>>20853509
Sons will colonize and daughters will be colonized. Build fortresses to repel pirates. Establish a strong culture so the colonizers convert to your language.

>>20854890
>>20854899
girl, you gotta give more than that, otherwise to everyone reading you'll look emotional, desperate, and dump

>>20853509
You're supposed to marry off your daughter and get a son-in-law meaning you gain a son who you secured a wife for and whose sons will be your grandsons, carrying on your legacy. Think about it logically.

>>20853509

Your son(s) will also eventually leave you. What, do you think own them?

>>20855083
Lol when a femoid pretends to know men.

>>20853509
The aristocracy always found daughters useful for forming marriage alliances. Whereas only sons means either the fortune gets split or you have conflict Over inheritance. With daughters you get to marry into countless other aristocratic families gaining advantage for yourself.

>>20855092

I'm actually a happily married man with 2 children. With a mindset like that, you should make peace with the fact your daughters may end up as prostitute, and your sons as incel.

>>20854890
I'm consistently rated as an 8/10 on /soc/ including by femanons
>>20854899
I had several gfs before, but I broke up with them. I don't see a point in having a relationship if raising good kids is out of the option. literally the only fucking thing I want out of life is to lift weights, teach people martial arts, have a loving family that appreciates the liberal arts, and maybe write a few decent books that might give somebody the spark that I got for learning when I was on 4chan and that my elite university failed to give me (despite me looking for it). I'd just leave people alone because I hate conflict and I don't like imposing my opinions on people in case I'm wrong.

instead, you vile faggots couldn't even give me that. and I would hate to have a broken marriage because I stood up to protect my kids from getting brainwashed into switching genders and castrating themselves before they even know what their favorite color is.

so, I'm dedicating my life to blowing this shit up. you are my nemesis.

>>20853509
Well, the fact that it's a retarded meme joke with a picture of a hobbit smoking a pipe should probably tip you off to the fact that it may not be a good source for serious life philosophy/advice, it certainly wasn't intended that way by the person who made it. The "think about it logically" line is intended to be ridiculous because it is not logical and it is, in fact, completely fucking retarded. The sick, disgusting implications as discussed already by other anons are also a sign that perhaps you should not be taking it seriously.

Putting all that aside, where is the support for the idea that you are raising a child "solely" so that she can be "ravaged"? If you believed the assumption that underlies this image, i.e. that women can only ever be whores, then why would you have a family at all if the children's mother must be a whore as well?

If you are not able to refute a literal meme, perhaps you should spend a little more time reading and developing your critical thinking skills, rather than scrolling on r9k.

>>20853533
>>20853695
Good lord, I really hope you are pretending. The layers of both moral and intellectual retardation in these posts are really remarkable, even for this site.

>>20854665
>>20855053
People who might actually not be making the world a shittier place by reproducing. Congratulations on your functioning brain cells.

>>20855163
You seem decent enough but the blackpill/doomer/victim mentality thing is not going to do you any good. Have some patience, assert your preferences when meeting people, be firm but gentle, and you will probably find that reality is not as bad as the internet leads you to believe. Focus on the things in your control, focus on the people close to you, don't get caught up in the spectacle.

>>20853533
>>20853695
Kys

>>20855272
>You seem decent enough but the blackpill/doomer/victim mentality thing is not going to do you any good.
I'm not blackpilled. I just know that I'm not going to be having kids any time soon. it's not my main priority. I'd rather books be my kids.
>Focus on the things in your control, focus on the people close to you, don't get caught up in the spectacle
You're telling me to focus on things that have free will and are thus not in my control. That's a bit contradictory, don't you think? Books are close to me, I'll focus on books. I genuinely do not have any other interests except climbing as high as I can out of Plato's cave, as far up Jacob's ladder, etc., until I can bring something down that can ensure that this society is not going to collapse into a race war in a generation or two. I know personally that the next generation of elites are either retarded or evil, perhaps both, and I have to be ready for them.

>>20854665
>Also why would you care about how your childrens sex life turn out? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with their competence and contribution to society?
Those two things are directly and inextricably intertwined. Are you a mentally compartmentalizing woman by any chance?

>>20855319
Based

>>20853509
You're not raising and educating her, her mother is. She just sit on your lap occasionally and rambles.

>>20853892
Try me pussy

>>20855319
>I'd rather books be my kids.
This is even more soi than fur babies

Why are you more concerned with the relative social status between yourself and a male like half your age at best, than with furthering your daughter's standing and happiness?
Also being weirdly obsessed with your kids' future hypothetical sex life is a bizarre complex to have. Your kids are going to have sex eventually, get the fuck over it. If you were normal you would understand this is healthy and desirable (to a point).

If you actually think about it logically, it is unequivocally better to have a daughter over a son, presuming we dont slide back to being peasant farmers.

1. Boys die at a higher rate than girls at every age. In the years 15-40, boys die at a 3 times higher rate. Note that unlike the nonsense claim in OP that you're wasting your time raising you child because she will eventually get a husband, if you spend time raising your child and they die at 16 before they even have the chance to pay you back in even the most basic form, (forget not taking care of you in old age or not giving you grandchildren, they cant even buy you a decent fathers day gift), then you really did just waste a whole bunch of time for literally nothing. That chance is higher with boys than girls.

2. Like >>20853749 said its easier for girls to reproduce. Ever heard of the trivers-Willard hypothesis? Basically when in doubt an animal (includes humans) will give birth to a female instead a male because the chance of a fenale reproducing is higher. And if youre on 4channel you're damn well aware of the risk any son you have has of becoming an incel.

3. Women are hypergamous, and will marry off to a man of a higher station than them. No she may not get a prince or a rothschild (though its possible) but she will marry off into someone better than yourself.

4. In todays society, the disadvantages of having a daughter or being a woman in general a moot, since they have just as much opportunity to lead a decent life since the well paying job market doesqn't consist of labour and other male dominated fields. A woman can become an office worker easily and make just as much if not more than other males in her agegroup. Yeah in the past women were a worse deal because they were useless on the farm, useless in the mines, useless in the army, and all the clerical positions were held by men. But now thats changed and women basically are guranteed a comfy decent paying government desk job at the bare minimum

Oh yeah, and if things ever do really go to shit, your daughter aren't going to be the ones getting drafted.


That all said there are still advantages of having a son. From a social standpoint he can greatly improve social standing in just one generation, more than a woman can through hypergamy. And from a biological standpoint he can spread his genes way more widely.
But its a high risk high reward thing with sons. The thing is, you can have more than one child so why not have a daughter first as a more guaranteed safe option, and have sons afterwards for the gamble?

>>20855775
All of those reasons are arguments against having daughters... Even 1., the fact that men die more often is evidence of their greater existential awareness and spiritedness. A son dying taking a risk (which could also pay off for him) is nothing like being eternally cucked by other men. You seem to be implying that perpetuating my genes (even though the Y haplogroup can't be perpetuated by women) is a good thing, when the only thing that really matters is your connection to your direct family. My great great + 12 grandsons/daughters might as well not be mine, because they are exponentially genetically removed from me.

>>20855764
A ton of people don't have kids because they think it's evil to bring kids into a meaningless, doomed world. They're not wrong.

>>20855798
Weak pussy position. Youre on the same intellectual as an incel. Smh desu senpai

>>20855796
If you think your children are better off dying early than being alive then I dunno you can just ignore everything I said, your thinking is too far removed from mine.

>>20854606
>In reality an "aristocratic" men wouldn't settle for just any pretty girl from the street.

A prince wouldn't, but the autistic son of two FAANG programmers who make 200k a year would. If he has a good job as well, that plus the inheritance should be enough to be a petit bourgeois in America.

>say, some rich, but stupid(which is rarely a case as much as many like to think otherwise) man picks up a fucktoy "from the streets" why would he ever care about the rest of her family?

Because she cares about the rest of her family and he cares about her. Obviously if she asked the rich husband to buy golden toilets for her entire extended family the answer should be no, but helping an ailing parent should not be too much to ask for in a healthy marriage.

The suitor doesn't have to be stupid and the girl has to be more than a prostitute. The suitor just has to be lonely and vulnerable and the girl just has to love him despite his poor looks/mental illness/whatever it is that makes him a failure with other girls.

>>20855819
If you think that's what my post implied then your reading comprehension is too far removed from mine. The point was higher chance of death for men = less chance of being mediocre.

>>20855811
If everybody gives up on having kids or raising people right then my kids are screwed too.

>>20854606
>Imagining that OP is poor, how often do you see a woman from a poor family with good looks?

Very often when they don't have drug problems or get pregnant at 15. If anything, I think rich nerds tend to be uglier because so many of them choose their mates based on their brains rather than their looks.

>beautiful women do not want to trade their most valuable asset for Love that comes from someone "poorer(in most general terms)" than them

Not true at all. Lower class women generally think of love in Disney terms. They marry poor because their entire social circle is low class and their heart told them to marry Jimbob from the trailer park, not because they couldn't do better.

This is not bad, I wouldn't be worried or sad if this was the reality, because I know women are exclusively created for that purpose. why being ashamed of nature and life?