Equal and opposite?

loneliness-inc · 2021-07-07T14:56:38+00:00

Equal and opposite? Only within the context of traditional gender roles.

No. Equality is a figment of imagination. Especially gender equality. It simply doesn't exist.

By nature, men and women each evolved to have a separate and exclusive source of value.

True. But the value that we each contribute is not equal in any way.

For women, the ability to bear children. (Arguably the most important value to a species).

It's the bottleneck of the reproductive process, but it is not the most important element. Please, stop the pussy worship!

Granted. Humanity needs men and women. Humanity cannot survive without men and women. However, the process of gestation and birth is something that a woman can do in a coma.

In a coma!!!

A pregnant woman without the protection and provision of a man, is dead meat. She would be dead within a day or three. She cannot carry the baby to term without his support. She cannot raise her baby without his support. Even today, she has the support of the male collective, even if she doesn't have an individual man.

His support requires actual achievement. He must work and bust his ass, to protect and provide. He must succeed in life to accomplish his role in reproduction. She OTOH, can achieve her role while completely unconscious and unaware of what the hell happened.

But because she's the bottleneck of reproduction, she's the most valuable??? Give me a break!

Each source of value actually created the closest thing you can get to a "balance of reproductive value" between the genders.

Traditional gender roles were balanced, but they were never equal.

There is no equality between the genders. Not value equality and not legal equality and not any other form of equality. The whole concept of equality is a religious belief that has no basis in the real world. Thus, it's bullshit.

AtomicMGTOW · 2021-07-07T18:17:42+00:00

I don't know why there's so much blowback on your thoughts. I thought it was well thought out and presented. Legal equality sounds great on the human/species level, but as soon as you go just one level deeper - male and female - the thing starts to fall apart because we don't want the same things and are built the same way for the same tasks.

Most of the developed world today prioritizes a woman's priorities - babies. It's not that men don't want to pass on their genes but the programming that gets us there is being horny so in reality it's more the sex we want. With women, they want and prioritize babies over sex if you average out their lifetime. I should have to say this but I guess I do - I'm not saying women don't want and enjoy sex but that is usually early on and they move on to prioritizing babies. And if the men don't follow suit they are shamed for not being mature or grown up - a perpetual child. But at this point, sex for women is more of a means to an end. For men, sex is pretty much the end.

Again, I shouldn't have to say this but I guess I do because there are so many black and white thinkers out there - I'm not saying men don't want/enjoy children. And of course men and women have to fuck to have babies or the human race ends*

But for men, we continue to love sex just for sex's sake. Not so much for at least 60% of women after they've had kids. Now their fucking because if she "starves the dog" he'll go somewhere else and get it. Women USED to be scared of losing him because she'd lose his resources. The legal equality prevents this by taking his money and giving it to her but she doesn't have to do anything for it in return.

Who wouldn't take that deal? Imagine my boss has to pay me whether I go to work or not... why the fuck would I go to work? Maybe I would a few times to alleviate the guilt (same as a woman giving him a bit of sex here and there), but eventually I'm going to stop going or do less and less while there.

*NOTE: The argument that far too many woman make in defense of they're baby-making proclivities is that the human race would die off without women having babies. This is a shit argument but wasn't where I wanted to go in the middle of my main point.

Who fucking cares if the human race ends? Is the earth going to be sad? We're fucking meaningless to the universe. There was a time before we are here and there will be a time after we're gone and the universe does't give a fuck. Women that use this argument are tiny, insecure, and pretty much useless - this grandiose argument is their ego defense mechanism. A way to inflate their value. As someone below already stated, a woman can get pregnant and go through the whole pregnancy and have a perfectly healthy baby in a fucking coma. A COMA. Can resources be produced in a coma? Fuck no. A woman's instinct is to have a baby so they can rationalize it. We all rationalize what we want/take. But from the outside looking in, having babies is far from the highest calling. You can have all the babies you want but they're all going to die without protection and resources.

Having children is pure vanity and status. And it gives us something to work and live for and a 'hope' for the future. Those are all selfish. And without the human instinct DRIVING women to have babies (and driving men to wanna fuck), we'd all realize how selfish it is.

If the world is such a big bad scary place, why bring children into it? They're going to suffer and die too. Imagine all the suffering that could be avoided without more babies?

And why does any ONE woman think that she's saving the human race? Half the women could stop having babies and we'd still get by on the breeders. Maybe not 'replacement' levels but we'd be ok. The world could do with fewer people IMO. So,imagine how narcissistic ONE woman has to be to make the argument that without babies the human race would die off... she's really saying that without HER baby the human race would die off? Get fucked.

And why to they all have to have their own? Why not adopt one of the already born and suffering babies if having children is such an altruistic thing to do?

Wow, that went way longer than expected. Rant over.

silly_birb · 2021-07-07T07:26:10+00:00

Earth is overpopulated, thus the value of bearing children is lower and it's no surprise women move to the value of work (aka "strong independent whamen")

The downside is older people need to keep working and are taxed more ti keep the system up.

Add to this that democracy allows lazy people to vote money for themselves and you have the receipe for the downfall of civilization.

Gaiinahat · 2021-07-08T01:04:21+00:00

So I'll just keep what I have, build it up to as much as I can, and sit back and watch while enjoying the fruits of my labor, as the rest of society burns to the ground. Cheers. 🍺---😎---🚬

BluepillProfessor · 2021-07-09T13:34:05+00:00

What we have today is the equivalent, in hunter-gatherer tribes, of making women child bearers \and* making women just as strong as men.

What we have is feminists trying to regress us back to another more primitive species. I have long said the leftists plan is to return us to the stone age as primitive, free love, hippy style communal living hunter gatherers. The feminists plan is to regress us to a time BEFORE human beings even evolved.

Homo Sapien Humans evolved from Homo Erectus, a species that is believed to have featured large, hairy women who competed with and hunted alongside the men.

About 300,000 years ago or so, a small band of Homo Erectus decided that smaller, hairless women were more attractive. At the same time, the women decided that TALL men (Chads) were more attractive. It did not take long for larger, stronger men, and weaker, hairless females to appear- the first human beings.

Now feminists want to change all that- but they want to keep the hot water and iphones so good luck with all that.

Look at the large, smelly, hairy feminists and tell me I am wrong.

Captainbuttman · 2021-07-07T04:20:23+00:00

[permanently deleted]

MrNeurotypical · 2021-07-10T21:42:02+00:00

I see something else happening. You have to remember that 2 systems can exist simultaneously and for long periods of time. MGTOW and feminism are currently at play. One is providing more resources to men and the other is providing more resources to women. In capitalism, Picketty concluded that the rate of return on capital is accumulated faster than the economy grows. So in a resource war between men and women, it all boils down to who has more capital.

Now, modern women spend far more than men, resulting in less capital accumulation. So I don't really see men as being less desirable because women can procure resources. Men can usually procure more. While we did see a large transfer of resources due to feminism, many of those women will have squandered that away and end up being worker bees and good little consumers, lining the pockets of people with capital(men).

So in the end, feminism just backfires and enslaves women to MGTOWs. Keep working, ladies! Now I don't have to work to support them AND they provide me resources to buy sex and support my offspring. Everybody keeps complaining about the situation but I'm lovin it.

chuck-u_farley · 2021-07-07T22:57:45+00:00

Because male investment and provisioning will inherently become far less valuable to women if they now share what used to be men's balancing source of value.

Thats a feature, not a bug of radfem3-0.exe

srtor · 2021-07-07T11:40:08+00:00

What kind of write up is this?

Garbage, absolutely garbage.

Started with talking of equality and then starting comparing apple with oranges.

Women are not human child producing machine. When it comes to reproduction, both men and women are involved. It is not just sperm and egg either, a commitment a partnership aka a family is needed to rear a new born to grow up as a responsible mature human being.

That is why children out of wedlock were scorned upon since ancient times. Degenerate western society has destroyed the family concept in name of 'smashing the patriarchy'.

Now comes the question of equality in terms of gathering resource for sustenance, and western women with utmost help have mostly failed on that issue. Still men are the major providers in most of the families in the society.

'Equality' is not based on pick and choose. Only the safe, lucrative jobs are being sought by the feminists. No - it should be at all levels. From street cleaning to garbage collection to military, mining etc etc.

True equality will be that, else it will be fake 'equality'.

No wonder the degenerate western society, is going downhill with all these 'fake' claims and 'woke ness'.

Title	Equal and opposite?
Author	aoeusnth24
Upvotes	23
Comments	17
Date	July 7, 2021 1:34 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/of8xc4/equal_and_opposite/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/equal-and-opposite.789404 https://theredarchive.com/post/789404

Comments

In a coma!!!