Feminism is the Female Will to Power Made Manifest

[Anonymous No.15239714]

One thing you will quickly notice about the average feminist is that she's really ugly. Really, this applies to most of these subcultures and political movements, from trannies to communists, but we're talking about feminists right now.
One interesting aspect of feminism that seems to be the case is that it is a way for undesirable, damaged, and unattractive women to exert their will to power. You'll often hear feminists rationalize their behavior, whether it be their sexual aggressiveness or their anger by saying that it makes them feel "empowered". Or makes them feel "powerful". These are not the words of a normal woman who feels content with exerting her power through her feminine charm and her sexuality, bending the men to her will in the process. This is the expression of a deeply hurt, rejected woman.

[Anonymous No.15239717]

>>15239714
Pic in my OP is exactly what I'm talking about. The rejection and bitterness these women experienced somewhere in their lives has de-sexed them, making them feel unwanted, unattractive, and miserable. They reject all standards held by conventional society in an act of rebellion in what they as a society who's standards unduly burden their conscience. It's fundamentally a misguided act of well ownership. They want to crush binaries, standards, and norms because this is the only way they ever be able to impose their feminine power on others. It's fundamentally motivated by a desire to dominate others

[Anonymous No.15239730]

And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.15239747]

>>15239730
Based
>>15239714
>>15239717
Have sex incel

[Anonymous No.15239749]

>>15239730
My dike wife's a real battle-axe.

[Anonymous No.15239764]

>>15239747

cope.

[Anonymous No.15239797]

>>15239730
the labrys is INCREDIBLY based

[Anonymous No.15239806]

>>15239714
Bear in mind that Nietzsche is a protopostmodernist and feminist is within modernity
NOW, feminism is nothing more than the female project of choosing leaders and ultimately they will choose a male because women, first off, only see men as tools, and two base leadership qualities historically, favouring men
Welcome to post-feminism 2020, nothing changed as a result of feminism and vocal advocates, whether protesters, speakers etc. have yet to come around to reality

[Anonymous No.15239838]

>>15239714
good. the power to manipulate male desire is the most useless form of power ever and i hope more women make conscious efforts to desexualize themselves. women are better off without throngs of stupid coomers flocking behind them hoping the women will allow them to pity-flick their clits. once you are free from male desire, you can work on developing yourself as a person and actually cultivating some interests beyond “the boys like it when my tits are up to my neck so my interest is...push-up bras!” desexualization is based.

[Anonymous No.15239850]

>>15239730
Where do I start with the Chad feminists?

[Anonymous No.15239869]

>>15239838
This is cope. The standards make them feel miserable, so the standards are the problem. These imposed rules are what they call "the patriarchy" and "the male gaze". It's women trying to conform to these standards. What they seem to not realize is that men have to conform to these standards as well. It isn't the patriarchy, it's life. The rejection of these standards are fundamentally infantile and it's just another sign of the fact that the generations from Boomers to Gen Z are people who never really grew up. Forever rebelling against our fathers. It's prolonged adolescence.

[Anonymous No.15239993]

bump

[Anonymous No.15240124]

>will to power

[Anonymous No.15240130]

>>15239850
Camille Paglia.

[Anonymous No.15240144]

>>15239869
Literally just don't be fat and don't sleep around

[Anonymous No.15240164]

>>15239838
>once you are free from male desire, you can work on developing yourself as a person and actually cultivating some interests beyond “the boys like it when my tits are up to my neck so my interest is...push-up bras!” desexualization is based.
Women are incapable of developing personalities, these efforts are fruitless.

[Anonymous No.15240168]

>>15240144
They can't even do that right.

[Anonymous No.15240234]

I was born, tied down and had the most sensitive part of my genitals crushed off before I could even make sense of the world. So women can fuck off with their bullshit about ME owing them something.

[Anonymous No.15240268]

>>15240234
Women don't even know you exist.

[Anonymous No.15240274]

>>15240164
Women universally have more interesting personalities than men. This comes with sensuality, women are more in tune with themselves and are more sophisticated as people. Men are a mess of pretenses, insecurities, and external interests. It has never been the role of men to have interesting personalities, they are made for jobs, crafts, and pursuits. They are broad and shallow, and take pride in feeling nothing deeply. The world of women is often invisible to them, and in the usual manner of irrational people, they face what they don't understand with the assumption that there is nothing to understand. With this rift established by the men between themselves and women, women become harder to access in any fulfilling way, and the resulting frustration compounds the issue for men. It's rare for the people who can access women to overlap with the people who complain about their nature.

These ugly feminists you speak of, what you're seeing is them taking on a more male nature. Contrivance and ego, which are the death of soul. Those that express antipathy towards men probably have the most respect for them, making them out to be powerful and fearful things, a daunting enemy. Aside from these feminists, however, women really don't respect men that much. I think that's really interesting and I know most of you haven't given thought to this. If men were expressly superior to women, I think the general drift of the female attitude would be to look up to men much more than they do. It doesn't add up. Men fear women, women rarely take men seriously. And women understand men better than men understand women. It's obvious what's really going on

[Anonymous No.15240281]

>>15240268

[Anonymous No.15240291]

>>15239714
Was there ever a feminist that went full trad? Asking for science

[Anonymous No.15240295]

>>15239714
>>15239717
Change feminist to "incel" and "woman" to "man" and you've described most 4chan posters.

[Anonymous No.15240324]

>>15239717
>They reject all standards held by conventional society in an act of rebellion
They aren't exerting their will to power then, they are merely just reacting to a former standard and are not transcending it all together.

[Anonymous No.15240353]

>>15240281
I'm sure you think you made a point with that picture, but the fact remains that you being upset that jerking off isn't as good as it could be is irrelevant and women are wholly demanding nothing from you.

[Anonymous No.15240376]

>>15240353
Silence, fatty.

[Anonymous No.15240388]

>>15240274
that's a lot of nothing you just wrote, lol. Women are fundamentally shallow creatures, driven by masochism, narcissism, and jealousy.

[Anonymous No.15240393]

>>15240324
>and are not transcending it all together.
Except they are trying to with cancel culture, counterculture.

[Anonymous No.15240394]

>>15240295
cope.

[Anonymous No.15240398]

>>15239714
Combing Nietzsche and Freud in this way is really cringe. Just stick to Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15240536]

>>15240388
>masochism, narcissism, and jealousy.
since when are these not male features as well if not moreso, anon? I suppose it depends on your view. In the scientific view narcissism is actually more correlated with men. I don't suspect that there's a difference in jealousy, but if there was I don't see why it would be more characteristic of women. Possessiveness is a more male quality. I'm not sure where the "masochism" bit is coming from so no comment on that

[Anonymous No.15240654]

>>15240274
Interesting

[Anonymous No.15240678]

>>15240398

>Attempt to explain human behavior
>Hurr that's FREUDIAN, REEEEEE

Fuck off. Surely Hobbes was Freudian too.

[Anonymous No.15240726]

>>15240678
No. The pseudo-Freudian bit is OP's spurious attempt to ascribe psycho-social causes to their ideological beliefs. There are plenty of perfectly decent-looking and attractive feminists of all stripes. You would know this if you had ever had the misfortune of living in a truly liberal area. Even if it turned out that feminists are mostly ugly, there would still be no way to draw a logical connection between their looks and their beliefs, considering the wide variety of views held by "ugly" men and women.
Also, the will to power thing is interesting and potentially insightful, but not in the way OP meant. If my understanding of the will to power, and Nietzsche in general, is correct - and there's a strong possibility that it isn't - the basic idea is that, rather than disguising our desires and will with morality, man should simply present his will to the world as it is. He should engage in heroic acts of will and make no pretense to reason. The feminist does exactly this with her routine bald-faced assertions, her embrace of bullying, and her willingness to deceive others in order to enlist their aid.
The feminist is at the core of the Nietzschean Left, and her heroic acts of will are what give the politics of our generation its peculiar character.

[Anonymous No.15241077]

>>15240274
I'll bite.
>Men are a mess of pretenses, insecurities, and external interests
This trinity is at the core of women's problems, and the main reason for feminism. Specially insecurities.
>They are broad and shallow, and take pride in feeling nothing deeply
You know what's shallow? Generalizing.
And it's pretty narcissistic to say women have an "invisible world", which I take to mean a form of culture and/or customs, Both sexes have a form of idiosincratic understanding but it's nothing so profound nor unique so that it couldn't be understood by the other.
> broad and shallow, and take pride in feeling nothing deeply. The world of women is often invisible to them, and in the usual manner of irrational people, they face what they don't understand with the assumption that there is nothing to understand. With this rift established by the men between themselves and women, women become harder to access in any fulfilling way, and the resulting frustration compounds the issue for men
Are you refering to the incel phenomenon? I agree with this, but fail to see the relevance. This is a rather new phenomena too.
I also agree to your last paragraph, except for the fact that I don't think men fear women, nor that women are as self-assured as you make them to be

[Anonymous No.15241177]

>>15241077
She's just upset by my OP.
The incel problem is being caused by female hypergamy.

[Anonymous No.15241186]

>>15240536
Women love to be dominated.

[Anonymous No.15241495]

>>15241077
>This trinity is at the core of women's problems, and the main reason for feminism. Specially insecurities.
Not that women don't have insecurities, I probably should have been more specific in what I meant, but apart from that you're not really arguing anything, just declaring an opposite stance, and it doesn't really mean anything to me.
>You know what's shallow? Generalizing.
Sure but that's the nature of this discussion, let it be assumed that there are a great number of exceptions and that we're discussing the mean case.
>And it's pretty narcissistic to say women have an "invisible world", which I take to mean a form of culture and/or customs
I think that men fail to perceive a lot of what is going on with women. It's not narcissistic of me at all, I'm not a woman, I've just never seen reason to resign to a negative attitude towards women and I feel like I understand a lot more as a result.

>Both sexes have a form of idiosincratic understanding but it's nothing so profound nor unique so that it couldn't be understood by the other.
I didn't say it couldn't be understood, not at all, but that men generally fail to understand women and do so more than women fail to understand men, I think. But that's a hot take.
I think in terms of emotion and communication, women experience something close to an unseen dimension which is not so much inaccessible to men as it is just neglected due to lack of sense.
>Are you refering to the incel phenomenon?
No, far broader. Or at least you could consider it within the scope of this thread, looking at the set of attitudes here. It's common that men see women as things that are not coherent, surely you can agree with that. Then it's only a question of what we observe to follow from that premise. When men fail to understand women, what do we see follow, if not the development I just described? Treating it as though there's nothing to understand, and concluding that they are shallow?
This, of course, predates the incel phenomenon, and it would be unfair to assume that the people in this thread are all incels. Although I would say it's correlated with inexperience with women.
>except for the fact that I don't think men fear women, nor that women are as self-assured as you make them to be
It is exaggerated in the interest of brevity, I mean that this is the more common case as opposed to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.15241522]

>>15241186
I don't disagree with that, and perhaps that gives them a greater inclination towards sexual masochism (nothing more than inclination, submission/domination shouldn't be conflated with masochism/sadism).
But across the whole of life, I'm not so sure that Men are less masochistic. I think men are less sexually masochistic, but more masochistic elsewhere. We can bring this back to Nietzsche. The assumption of burdens and pursuit of suffering as if that is a means of actualization or achievement is more distinctly male. Men are also more principle-concerned and more disposed towards self punishment.

[Anonymous No.15241558]

>>15239714
It's a nice theory if you pay attention you'll find most people aren't very attractive. Attractive, healthy people constitute a very small percentage of the population.

[Anonymous No.15241570]

Second picture on the right suits her. She is too squat and peasntly to be considered beautiful, that long her is wasted on her frame and is a mockery of classical beauty. Her style on the right however matches her physiognomy, screams first date anal and soft sobbing from the bathroom as you order yourself a post-coitus uber later.

[Anonymous No.15241598]

>>15240274
>Women universally have more interesting personalities than men.
HAHASHDSAKJHFDSA H FDA;SHFD;SLAJ FDWEQPIMOT FOPDISJ FALSJLSL;AD FJDSAPOFJI EDOFCJCSK DFLHAARW CHF;WOJ F-AS9AEFH[QWH FAHF P-A HF-

[Anonymous No.15241623]

>>15241495
>I've just never seen reason to resign to a negative attitude towards women
you must have lived a very sheltered life, then.

[Anonymous No.15241629]

>>15240274
>Women universally have more interesting personalities than men.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.15241653]

>>15241495
>I think that men fail to perceive a lot of what is going on with women.
because their perspective is so stupid it's impossible for emales to relate. They are egoistical and entirely emotion driven. Talking politics or philophy with women is such a bore since I know they'll never have any interesting insights, and I doubt they even understand the subjects to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15241919]

>>15241623
No, and I've had negative experiences with women. But I don't shape my views around how things make me feel. Granted, my experience with women has been mostly positive, I just see that as enabling me to look at the issue more clearly. The fact people with a negative attitude towards women are almost never able to speak about it in a neutral tone. There's such tension about it, no one actually seems impartial.

>>15241653
No way are women more egoistic than men, that's an eccentric view at absolute best

[Anonymous No.15242105]

>>15240274
Yeah I'm thinking that if you call a bunch of nonsense "obvious" I'll believe it

[Anonymous No.15242170]

>>15242105
I'm thinking you don't actually have anything to say

[Anonymous No.15242476]

>>15239714
Doesn't do anything to explain why feminism appeared when it did. Why not 200 years ago? Obviously because society's attitudes changed. But changed to what? Not women: children. Women are de jure mothers and men providers. In modern society children are no longer a metaphysical representation of the future. "What is the point of having a child?" the modern asks. Another answers: "Family is one of the cornerstones of human existence. If you have a family, you will be happy." This in itself betrays a much larger issue with modernity, that happiness has become a thing in itself to be pursued.

But more to the point. The modern no longer "needs" children to secure his welfare or to pass on his livelihood - the State now handles the former, the latter has become unwanted in the rootlessness of the age. In this situation, women are de facto no longer mothers, and men no longer providers. The essential unity between the sexes has been removed. The concept of the family itself is erased in the absence of the child. Having a multitude of children is now seen as provincial - i remember that episode of the Simpsons where they make fun of the hillbilly Cletus for having like 20 children. That is what the original purpose of children and family now looks like to the modern.

So both women and men have become divorced from their natural roles. This is the situation in which feminism becomes possible. It's often touted as "equality between the sexes". But it is not, nor is it the liberation of women from the oppression of men - it is the final liberation of the modern woman from the role of motherhood. But only men have never had this role in the first place. This is why feminists, and indeed modern women in general, are often aggressive and standoffish like men. This is why many observers note that feminists are basically men with vaginas.

I would write more but typing on a phone is fucking aids,i don't know how phoneposters do it.

[Anonymous No.15242527]

>>15240274
>people are a mess of pretenses, insecurities, and external interests.
FIFY

[Anonymous No.15242564]

>>15240353
>women are wholly demanding nothing from you
>t. has never had a job with female "peers"

[Anonymous No.15242572]

>>15242476
They were freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed by the birth control pill?

[Anonymous No.15242607]

>>15241077
>This is a rather new phenomena too
You sure?

[Anonymous No.15242611]

>>15242572
Birth control also only became widespread when the attitude towards having children changed. Sex is now just sex, not a sacred act to produce children.

[Anonymous No.15242630]

>>15242611
When did this attitude change begin?

[Anonymous No.15243060]

Also feminism goes hand in hand with surrealism.

[Anonymous No.15243073]

>>15242630
The onset of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15243214]

>>15242630
>>15243073
The "enlightenment."

[Anonymous No.15243225]

>>15243214
The Enlightenment period and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.15243253]

>>15239714
Have sex. All these frustrations will disappear and you will wonder why you even spend so much time on drivel like this.

[Anonymous No.15243257]

>>15243253
I fuck my gf several times a week and this stuff is still interesting to me.

[Anonymous No.15243264]

>>15239869
The idea that 'men also have to conform' is fundamentally feminist. The patriarchy is a code of conduct and societal management, so it affects everyone. The feminist asks, Wouldn't it be nice if this archaic hierarchy went away? And men, imagining they are on top (they aren't, rich men are) and feeling like reorganization would dethrone them (they have no throne), resist.

Basically, class struggle is the only struggle, everything else was invented by you know who.

[Anonymous No.15243286]

>>15243225
Yes, and the enlightenment was made possible when members of a certain tribe, and people like them, were able to amass power after Europe was ravaged by the Black Death.

[Anonymous No.15243291]

>>15241653
I'm sure bringing up Heidegger in your next bros' outing will yield extremely insightful results.
Point being that no one understands those subjects, anon. Philosohy is a hobby that you discuss in academia or in containment forums on the internet, not something you can spew at people and then judge them on whether they 'get it'.

[Anonymous No.15243303]

>>15242476
The word feminism was coined nearly 200 years ago. The feminist movement has its roots in the end of the XIX century.

[Anonymous No.15243597]

World need more women who promote desexualisation propaganda and intellectual pursuits.
Fuck these shallow liberal sexualised whores who get all the attention for having a pussy and for their """beauty"""

[Anonymous No.15243715]

>>15239838
It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can still hold real, hard power and still posses the inherent power of influence that comes with being sexually desired. If anything, it only makes you more powerful. Desexing is literally cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Anonymous No.15243775]

>>15240295

They could be each others solution if they could get rid of their narcisisstic egoes

[Anonymous No.15243792]

>>15239714
water is wet

[Anonymous No.15243819]

>>15240295
ahh, now i get it why they call tumblr and 4chan two sides of same coin

[Anonymous No.15243878]

>>15240274
>It has never been the role of men to have interesting personalities
The only thing a woman has ever had to do to pass on her genes, in most instances, is to spread her legs and give a knowing wink. They have always taken on the more passive role in regards to sex and evolution. For men to reproduce, they have to climb to some dominant or affluent position within their given social hierarchy in order to signal fitness to prospective mates, and that process always includes the cultivation of socially competent personality traits. The selection pressures to developed interesting personalities have never applied to women, were they overwhelming have for men.

All of the best artists? Overwhelmingly male. All of the best writers? Overwhelmingly male. All of the best philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, or meta-physicians (etc.)? Again, overwhelmingly male. In fact, the higher echelons of almost any dominance hierarchy you can think of is virtually always bound to be disproportionately populated by men, even for things that women are typically known to be good at.

>"Oh but we're just 2deep4u. We're really complex and full of hidden, unrecognized potential! Men are just to simple to see it."
This is psychological compensation for latent penis envy. It's a coping mechanism.

[Anonymous No.15243893]

>>15240281
Kek

[Anonymous No.15243895]

>>15243878
I wonder what women would be like if they wouldn't have all their needs met by default, but they'd have to exert themselves and master something, just for basic needs.

[Anonymous No.15243896]

>>15243878
WTF is going on in that picture? Is that a monoboob?

[Anonymous No.15243899]

>>15240274
Fuck off roastie

[Anonymous No.15243914]

>>15243878
The majority of people, both men and woman, are uninteresting and boring. 99.8% of human evolution was in the stone age, in which people did barely more than necessary for survival. Woman did gruelling farmwork and men did gruelling hunting. Maybe slightly less men may be boring than woman, I don't really care. What I care about is your braindead incel evo-psych argument. Read a book. The bell curve, 10,000 year explosion, human diversity. They may even transform your coping to a scholarly acceptable level. Your incel taint is making my intellectual position look bad.

Read
More
Books

[Anonymous No.15243917]

>>15240274
>This comes with sensuality, women are more in tune with themselves
Tell me about female tastes, because I've gathered that it's pic related + status symbols. I'll tell you why it's impossible for a man to be 'in tune with themselves'.
>Women universally have more interesting personalities than men.
That's relative to your interests. Women are more pleasant to watch.
>and are more sophisticated as people.
Selecting for hairy apes for generations on generations, and only letting the opposing sex have quality traits if they can force them, may, just may have some influence on that. You don't seek to spread good qualities, you seek to limit them. Ergo, men design women to look good, women design men to look bad.

[Anonymous No.15244001]

>>15240398
will to power is not freud, he was talking about eros as the leading instinct. Will to power is Adler.

[Anonymous No.15244008]

>>15243264
I need a book on this subject. Intersectionality is the worst thing that ever happened, along with PC. It divided and continues to divide based on the assumption that one persons life experience is more important than another's based on multiple factors and labels. It causes nothing but division and segregation.

[Anonymous No.15244020]

>>15243914
>no argument
>just ad hominems
Demonstrating the superficiality of women in a better way than I ever could.

Since the agricultural revolution, something like 15 - 17 women successfully reproduced for every male. I think that says quite a lot about the different reproductive strategies of men and women and the selection pressures which inform them. For a woman to reproduce, she need only to signal fertility. For a male to reproduce, he needs to dominate the competition and demonstrate that he substantially more fit than his male peers. There has simply never been a reason for women to develop interesting, competent personalities, evolutionarily speaking.

Yes, most people are boring, but it's in the extremes of personality traits where you see the most radical divergence between the sexes becomes apparent, and these extremes are almost always overwhelmingly dominated by men.

[Anonymous No.15244022]

>>15239714

[Anonymous No.15244029]

[Anonymous No.15244035]

[Anonymous No.15244039]

[Anonymous No.15244109]

>>15243715
it isn’t particularly power-enhancing to constantly wonder if someone is listening to you and encouraging you because you actually have something of value to say or because you are a woman who isn’t terribly ugly. sex appeal to males is a thorn. as long as you’re a pretty woman the majority of retard coomer men will humor whatever the hell you’re saying because you have a pussy. once the pussy becomes odd goods your value lies entirely in your word and your skills. sometimes the nose has to go, anon.

[Anonymous No.15244138]

>>15239714
The sad thing is that feminists are complaining about male archetypes that their ilk helped promulgate. They couldn't whine about "the male gaze" if they hadn't promoted the sexual revolution. They demand more liberties and are shocked when they show to have consequences they do not like. It is like they cannot comprehend that their actions make men less desirable too and that as a consequence they get to complain about men. Men ceased to find value in woman beyond the sexual because it was the feminist that made woman more masculine and a bother for a man to find her desirable. Woman in turn gets to find subservient men adapted to such a reality, MGTOWers who thought that women really are just for sex, and frustrated men who are just willing to put up with it.
I think that the more men like the women become, the more woman like the men become, and as women see this happen, they think it is the patriarchy affirming itself, and that men are inferior, and as such they amplify the damage already done. It is a negation of nature and an affirmation of lunacy and a sickly mind.

[Anonymous No.15244162]

>>15240274
Where does this depth and sophistication of women find expression then?

[Anonymous No.15244164]

>>15244138
Kali Yuga and end times were pretty spot on memes, not so much in accurate scientific depiction, but in aesthetic and overall carnality.

[Anonymous No.15244171]

>>15244162
I've found some pretty relaxing tarot readers on Youtube, feminine old women. Pleasant company.

[Anonymous No.15244199]

>>15240274
>Women universally have more interesting personalities than men.
True. When she cries into the pillow for the 27th time for the day, the man is stupefied and seeks to find an answer, but to no avail. Such interesting phenomena is only found in the interesting personality of women, which have remained an object of fascination for millennia.

[Anonymous No.15244211]

>>15244171
I like my grandma too and a few other women for that matter, but the post I was responding to claims that there is a depth shared by most women that men have difficulty accessing, I want to know where exactly I could see it expressed and what is specifically.

[Anonymous No.15244218]

>>15244199
Is that really a mystery? I've always known the reasons.
>Exhibit A: the desire to manipulate
>Exhibit B: things didn't go her way
>Exhibit C: she isn't being understood and lacks communication skills and tools to get through

[Anonymous No.15244223]

>>15239714
literature board

[Anonymous No.15244225]

>>15244211
*it is specifically

[Anonymous No.15244248]

>>15244218
>she isn't being understood and lacks communication skills and tools to get through
Hmm. Maybe it is a cope about not getting what you want, or a way to further manipulate.
Well, it was the most interesting part about woman, that she can be such a little child at times, but at the same time be more responsible in the household for example making the man look less responsible by contrast. The man dominates in the fields outside the house, but there are those men who are completely irresponsible, who fail to carry out their duties. It is like a duality of the two sexes that, if the potential is reached, defines them, and if that potential is not reached, can be their downfall.
The woman is more average. The man is either the failure or the super-successful.

[Anonymous No.15244323]

>>15244248
>The woman is more average. The man is either the failure or the super-successful.
You know how our chromosomes work in pairs? Women have XX, men have XY. This means that men have a greater genetic variance, as they lack genetic coping mechanisms. If one of the genes in their X or in their Y chromosomes is harmful, it doesn't have an alternative. It exists as itself, and manifests itself fully. It doesn't have a 'spare tire', to soften the effects.

Would be interesting if humans were from avians, like Plato stated. We'd have our XX and XY chromosomes in the opposite genders.

[Anonymous No.15244367]

>>15244323
>This means that men have a greater genetic variance
That was a good thing to point out. Haven't thought of that.