Gender relations - another way of looking at them

In this thread I'll explain why I think the current way many approach how the two human gender relate/compare to each other in society fails to adequately explain it, and I will propose my own explanation.

Let's start with the obvious. All except the most insane of the feminists and MRAs will agree that male and female are 2 biologically different sexes, meant to fulfill distinct but complimentary roles. So, we can establish that the sexes are not equal - men are superior at some things, and women are superior at others. In my experience I'd say that MRAs are generally a bit more receptive to this information than feminists, but another time about that.

Despite recognizing the differences between males and females, many of these very same MRAs and feminists will also argue that men and women should be "equal under the law". I will show why equality under the law fails.


Since men and women are different when you make them equal under the law, depending on with regards to what you made them equal about, you are benefiting either one side or the other. I've discussed this concept a lot on PhilosophyForums and I'd link to the specific thread, but unfortunately that site has been fucked for quite some time now so I'll just explain it shortly here:

Let's say there is a race between an ostrich and an eagle. If the law/rule of the race is: no flying, then the ostrich and the eagle may be equal under that law in the sense that they are both equally banned from flying, and yet the law clearly handicaps the eagle, and by handicapping the eagle it benefits the ostrich. Likewise, if the rule/law stated no running, that would benefit the eagle even if they were both equally banned from running.

This is, in short, why equality under the law fails. Because different entities have different advantages and disadvantages, if they are held to the same law, that same law will affect them differently - one will benefit, the other will be handicapped. So I don't think what we need is equality, I think what we need is something more akin to BALANCE, or rather, BALANC-ING, since absolute balance would be impossible. Something close to what traditionalists advocate but more based on a scientific, evolutionary understanding of reality instead of just tradition.

So it is clear that in order to create a fair society (by natural standards) we must take into account what men evolved for and what women evolved to see what either side has to offer (what their advantages/disadvantages are) so we can predict how certain laws would affect the two sides differently, and to try to balance it out. Keep in mind though, that this is a matter of which sex is GENERALLY better suited for something, not that EVERY member of a sex must be superior in that aspect to every member of the opposite sex.

What men have to offer to women is protection (dealing with threats) and provision (extraction of resources from the environment), this includes both the physical aspect of doing it and the intellectual aspect of coming up with more refined ways of dealing with threats/extracting resources. Essentially, dealing with the external world, reality, nature is the most important thing men can offer to women, and what makes masculinity irreplaceable. The second thing is sperm, less important because it is abundant in relation to eggs.
What women have to offer to men is, primarily, access to reproduction - their pussy and, more importantly, womb. This is what makes females irreplaceable. The secondary thing females can offer is homemaking (dealing with the internal world, a man's home), this is less important because men can do it themselves.

So far it seems balance is had. I am reminded of the movie blue lagoon, which to some extent has this scenario of balance and harmony between male and female, displaying male/female interactions in their purest, most natural form, without any external interventions.

What disrupts the balance between males and females is when the state, a masculine force, intervenes and begins determining the behavior of its subordinates. This can result in balance which favors males, or balance which favors females, by replacing certain things that individual males and/or females have to offer, which reduces the value of these males/females since they can obtain what the other has to offer from the state directly. The law of the market dictates that if something is scarce and/or difficult to obtain it is valuable, while if it is abundant and/or easy to obtain, it loses value.

Although in principle it could go either way, in practice, since the state is a masculine entity, it by necessity replaces more of what males have to offer than what females have to offer. It makes what males have to offer (protection, provision) easy to obtain, and thus less valuable. Depending on circumstances, it also replaces what females have to offer, varying from high replacement (the most oppressive patriarchy you can imagine) to low replacement (the most feminist society you can imagine).

I'll shorten state replacement to SR, and M will stand for males, while F for females. (-) will mean state replacement is not present, aka, male/female retain their value, + indicates state replacement is present, which makes individual males/females less valuable.

The following combinations thus exist, 2 of them are balanced and about different types of equality (just to show feminists what REAL equality would mean. Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. The other 2 are about the actual kinds of societies which have and will exist, the only kinds of societies possible. What follows are 4 extremes on a spectrum similar to the famous political compass 4 side spectrum, of course there are also positions inbetween, in fact, the only reason I'm showing the extremes is so you can understand all that is inbetween by implication.


1. SRM+ SRF+ (state replaces both men and women completely) EQUALITY TYPE 1

The state replaces both what men have to offer to women, and what women have to offer to men. Men don't have the control who to protect and provide for, while women don't have the control over to whom they grant access to their womb/vagina, basically everybody protects and provides for everybody and everybody fucks everybody and this is enforced by... everybody. A sort of communism mixed with hippie sexuality in its most extreme form, a truly non-discriminate and tolerant society and yet something feminists would never advocate for.

2. SRM+ and SRF- (state replaces men completely women not at all) GYNOCENTRISM, FEMALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

The state replaces what men have to offer to women, aka, it forces men to protect women and provide for them while not replacing what women have to offer, instead women are given complete freedom to use the benefits of their own sexuality which is physically ensured by other men (police/military). This raises the value of females in relation to men. The extreme of this part of spectrum is feminist utopia, more moderate is gynocentric traditionalism. Due to the above mentioned fact that the state itself is a masculine entity, on the more moderate side of this part of the spectrum one can find the average, the most common type of society throughout history and especially in modernity, with regards to gender relations - some form of gynocentric traditionalism.

3. SRM- and SRF+ (state replaces females but not males) ANDROCENTRISM - MALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

In this case men can choose who to protect and provide for (so no police/military protecting women and threatening men and no general transfer of resources from men to women through taxation), so they are given the advantages of their sexuality, while women are not given the advantages of theirs and the access to their womb/pussy is controlled by men, so women don't have anything left to offer and the value of men is higher than the value of women. THIS is actual male oppression of women, not the nonsense feminists talk about. Perhaps a few ancient, patriarchal (androcentric) traditionalist societies which were warrior cultures existed on this part of the spectrum, albeit in a more moderate form. Also possible during short transitory stages of anarchy, where there is nobody to keep males in check and they can naturally dominate females. The prevalent type of society when many men die in wars and thus women become abundant in relation to men.

4. SRM- SRF- (state replaces neither females nor males) EQUALITY TYPE 2

In this type of equality men have the complete freedom to choose whom to protect and provide for (no state forcing police and military to protect all women and no state taxing men and transferring resources from men to women under threats of violence), and women have complete freedom to choose whom to grant access to their womb/vagina to (no state controlling female sexuality under threats of violence).


Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. I included the equalities just to show how absurd and impossible they are, and that it's not what any feminist would ever want.

Eh, I'm sure I could refine this post more but I'm tired now, I'll check it later for mistakes and etc.

The post I intended to post in Feminist thread now fits better here as a short extension to the OP and it exemplifies the more extreme case of the number 2) type of society



This video gets to the core of feminism, explaining its very origins.

Feminism is just the consequence of women forgetting that the world, the human world of social constructs, isn't built on 'proper grammar', 'correct political opinions', or 'nice manners'. It is a consequences of women beginning to take masculine protection/provision for granted and starting to think that whatever comfort they enjoy is purely a consequence of their own success, and has nothing to do with the infrastructure backing them - that if anything, men are the ones who always held them back. It is the inversion of reality.

Like when the spoiled child of a successful man inherits wealth and thinks he deserved it himself.

The world of human social constructs becomes THE WORLD for them, and any trace of THE WORLD, nature as it is, becomes cruel, evil and oppressive.

I've also noticed this lack of balance myself, by just observing real life. It was always odd to me how my uncle has to do a backbreaking physical job 8 hours a day for a month (a minimum of 200 hours of work) to get the same pay a prostitute can get in less than 1 day of work, which is less than 8 hours.

Neither of the two jobs require any sort of training, but the former can only be done by a man and the latter can only be done by a woman, so they are a good example of how little masculinity is valued in relation to femininity when, as Satyr said in his Feminization of Man, men are restricted from acting upon the advantages of masculine sexuality and dominating females to determine the price of pussy (should go without saying, but just in case - this does NOT necessarily mean rape), while females can fully use the advantages of their own sexuality. Naturally, this means that the price of what females have to offer skyrockets, while the price of what males have to offer is lowered, since the protection/provision of any individual male cannot match that of the daddy state.

Synergy produces specialized roles where overlapping is no longer necessary.
Each specialized roles evolves and cultivates the traits, talents, required to facilitate the role better, more effectively and efficiently because the other specialized roles has taken over the role that evolves and cultivates the traits and talents also required to survive within the environment.

this is cooperative synergy and social codependency - symbiosis.

Therefore the male/female are separated by hundreds of thousands of years of naturally selected specialized roles, one complimenting the other.
Masculine traits in relation to feminine traits are more advanced cultivated potentials, dependent on atrophying of the feminine traits, and vice versa.

In Feminization the masculine is taken over and monopolized by an abstraction = Church and later the State.
This is a advancement of the already evolved role of shaman in a tribe...where the male, usually, was both leader and spiritual guide. then the complexities involved had to separate the two roles within the tribe, resulting in the Church/State divide.

Modernity takes these roles and having abstracted them to the point where they become pure noumenon, or idea, can now use any biological representation, male and female to be the symbol of the masculine role.
Nihilism is this detachment of the word, the noumenon from the phenomenon, which means that this process of converting the role into an abstraction, a institution, is part of the Nihilistic dis-ease's essence.

The leader/shaman, the President/Priest, are figureheads. they can be anything. the fact that they have been males, is a remnant of this past - part of this gradual detachment.
We have now reached the point of detachment, in Modernity, where the words are entirely noetic, and the physical is inconsequential. We see this in identity issues, and the current confusion over sexual roles.

Gender was, originally, the social application of naturally evolved specialized reproductive roles - genes given symbols, meaning, by the meme.
Nihilistic memes dismiss genes, and construct socially based identities, denouncing natural roles as restrictions and remnants of a past that inhibits their effectiveness.
This is why moderns want to convert all identifiers as human social constructs, to hide the fact that it is the denial of naturally evolved roles, that identify, which is the socially engineered construct.

Under the institutionalized abstraction of masculinity, biological females and males are forced to behave as females....and this is enforced by law and order, criminalizing masculinity, and morality, ethics, and also enforced using peer pressure.
Morality, using shame and guilt is how the new manufactured roles are pressured into the individual, forcing him, and her, to abide by their restrictions and guidelines.

the reason why females are preferred, ergo Feminization, is due to their evolved sexual role, which makes them prone to easily adapt to authority and submit to group norms.

Satyr wrote:

We see this in identity issues, and the current confusion over sexual roles.

Hmmm, perhaps this can also be used to explain the sexual deviance of modernity? I think they are often a result of confusion and a crisis of identity.

Because of the system's preference for femininity, there are more than 3 times as many male>female transsexuals than female>male, exposing the desire to become female to be more valued by the system because they don't value themselves in relation to more timeless, natural standards, but in relation to ephemeral social standards. Trixie suffers of this - indecisiveness and confusion, an identity crisis.

It could also explain these weird sexual fetishes such as BDSM, especially the masochistic males and sadofemales, and why the kind of men and women who fall for them tend to be of certain ideological inclinations.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My explanation is this:

For maso males, they are weak males who, like most females, are completely immersed in the system and cannot perceive reality outside of human social constructs. Because of this they buy into the idea that females are equal to men and the feminist nonsense that they are strong and independent. They can only see the social construct of inflated female power and cannot see the reality underneath. Having little masculinity in the first place these weak males are ultimately completely emasculated and surrender to their feminine side, allowing females to be, or at least act, dominantly in the relationship. They often develop self-hatred and have low self-esteem.

Sado females - The same explanation applies, except that they are motivated by the hatred of an other, of a male, whom they seek to emasculate and reduce to their level.

Sado males and maso females are more natural because males naturally dominate and females are naturally dominant, but to me it's too unrealistic and just unnecessarily extreme. It seems to me like a result of hypersexualization, when ordinary sex doesn't satisfy anymore because of loss of substance people have to take things to an extreme to obtain gratification again. Why would a healthy man satisfied with his sex life ever want to tie up a woman and beat her or torture her? And why would a healthy, sexually satisfied woman ever desire to be tied up and beaten and tortured?

I would say, something in their relationship is missing. Perhaps the male has a sense of loss of control/dominance, which sadism and the role of a dom would restore? And the female feels the lack of a dominant male to put her in her place and needs extreme domination for her feminine fantasies of submission to a powerful male to be satisfied?

A masculine, rational male would see females as nothing more, but also nothing less, than what they really are - regardless of the particular circumstances of social constructs in a particular time and particular place. He would not worship females and put them on pedestal (gynocentrism), nor would he hate or resent them (misogyny).

So essentially all of these deviances are a consequence of identity confusion, males detaching from their masculinity and females detaching from their feminity - loss of substance, detachment of word  from reality, where all could claim to be anything resulting in confusion and identity crisis.

This detachment of word from reality, noumenon from phenomenon as you call it, is at core of everything nihilistic it seems.

Very good.

Consider how this plays into the alpha versus the beta male strategies.
Consider how the abstraction of masculinity, monopolized by the institution forces all males into a emasculated, beta to omega male position.
This comes easier for naturally born, predisposed omega males, and less to the naturally born alphas and betas.
For the omega this is an opportunity to exploit their genetic predisposition to feminine behaviour.
such males become successful in careers requiring submission to norms and rules, or in jobs where self-repression and selling yourself determines success.

Another thing to consider is how this affects females.
The female has evolved to be attracted to superior, dominant, males, bur the system teaches them, trains them, that the effete, submissive, nice guy, is the ideal male, the emasculated, or genetically predisposed to effete behaviour/thinking male , because he is a social ideal.

Because females naturally adapt to social rules and submit to the alpha, they accept the memetic indoctrination, which comes into conflict with their genetic predispositions.
this creates an internal conflict.
This is part of what is called the female mystique, or why females are so confusing to modern males.

The female advances from a more natural behaviour, in her youth, to a more mature state where she is forced to make compromises.
The conflict between meme and gene remains, within Nihilistic systems, like our Modern one.

By the way...ignore retards on ILP like Krap-otkin.
It's not worth it.
Remember there are those reading your posts who will find them interesting. Retards shall remain retards.
Do not bother, if you can help it.
Let him discuss, his stupidity, with the other retard cAnus to their hearts content.
Sit back and laugh.

What happened in evolution is that such alpha males had short lifespans.
They would defeat another male, take over his harem breed as much as possible, and then they were killed by a younger, or stronger male.
Females accepted this change of circumstances naturally.
It's why females are so wishy-washy, changing their minds often, easily indoctrinated and so on.

What happened was that the male who dominated and also had the feminine traits to also establish and maintain social alliances had more offspring because he survived longer, and reproduced past his prime.
The political male appeared.
Now brains became more important than physical strength and virility, or just as important.
The male that was a brute failed against a male who could count on the support of his mates, because he was willing to share, resources and females.

Different reproductive strategies....the K/ and r/ strategies.

The r/ relies on quantities.
reproduce low quality offspring in large numbers.
The K/ invents on quality. Sacrifice time and effort, to give birth and raise a few superior offspring.

Interesting perspective, fits well into this thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

AutSider wrote:

Satyr wrote:

We see this in identity issues, and the current confusion over sexual roles.

Hmmm, perhaps this can also be used to explain the sexual deviance of modernity? I think they are often a result of confusion and a crisis of identity.

Because of the system's preference for femininity, there are more than 3 times as many male>female transsexuals than female>male, exposing the desire to become female to be more valued by the system because they don't value themselves in relation to more timeless, natural standards, but in relation to ephemeral social standards. Trixie suffers of this - indecisiveness and confusion, an identity crisis.

It could also explain these weird sexual fetishes such as BDSM, especially the masochistic males and sadofemales, and why the kind of men and women who fall for them tend to be of certain ideological inclinations.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My explanation is this:

For maso males, they are weak males who, like most females, are completely immersed in the system and cannot perceive reality outside of human social constructs. Because of this they buy into the idea that females are equal to men and the feminist nonsense that they are strong and independent. They can only see the social construct of inflated female power and cannot see the reality underneath. Having little masculinity in the first place these weak males are ultimately completely emasculated and surrender to their feminine side, allowing females to be, or at least act, dominantly in the relationship. They often develop self-hatred and have low self-esteem.

Sado females - The same explanation applies, except that they are motivated by the hatred of an other, of a male, whom they seek to emasculate and reduce to their level.

Sado males and maso females are more natural because males naturally dominate and females are naturally dominant, but to me it's too unrealistic and just unnecessarily extreme. It seems to me like a result of hypersexualization, when ordinary sex doesn't satisfy anymore because of loss of substance people have to take things to an extreme to obtain gratification again. Why would a healthy man satisfied with his sex life ever want to tie up a woman and beat her or torture her? And why would a healthy, sexually satisfied woman ever desire to be tied up and beaten and tortured?

I would say, something in their relationship is missing. Perhaps the male has a sense of loss of control/dominance, which sadism and the role of a dom would restore? And the female feels the lack of a dominant male to put her in her place and needs extreme domination for her feminine fantasies of submission to a powerful male to be satisfied?

A masculine, rational male would see females as nothing more, but also nothing less, than what they really are - regardless of the particular circumstances of social constructs in a particular time and particular place. He would not worship females and put them on pedestal (gynocentrism), nor would he hate or resent them (misogyny).

So essentially all of these deviances are a consequence of identity confusion, males detaching from their masculinity and females detaching from their feminity - loss of substance, detachment of word  from reality, where all could claim to be anything resulting in confusion and identity crisis.

This detachment of word from reality, noumenon from phenomenon as you call it, is at core of everything nihilistic it seems.

Well, how I view it is, the guy in the pic is being illogical. The whole point of being dominated by a woman is to not feel manly, so him whiny about being manly doesn't make any logic. Just reeks of a babymind, who, as you said, is weak. Too weak to throw off the memes of the fellow shitlibs around him, too weak to really explore morality to it's depths.

When you can throw off the xian brainwashing and state delusion, and still want to be lesbian, is when the true logic begins.

Now to answer your question, as to why females want to be dominated and tied up by males, well this is their natural female Dionysian instinct. Animal consciousness doesn't use words, it just grabs what it wants. Women want to be grabbed, women want to be wanted (by mr. right of course, not someone outside their genetic spectrum.) Chickens don't want to breed with humans, they want to breed with chickens. Shitlibs only want to breed with 90 pound hipsters because their genetic code is detected and in range of each other. Same with ghetto negroes who tend to breed with other ghetto negroes. Squirrels don't breed with wolf's, even though wolf's are stronger and more intelligent than squirrels. I would hazard to say that the reason shitlibs are attracted to cucks and shitlibs, is because they all are genetically similar to each other to be considered within the same subspecie, the cuckspecie. I would say this genetic attraction is even more powerful than state brainwashing, even though state brainwashing does play a role.

Far as mentally mature trannies who aren't shitlibs or ghetto thugs (I am probably the one of the only few in the entire world), I wouldn't call it a "crisis" but a fluctuation of hormones. Estrogen changing their brain structure, making their brain smaller and wanting to be dominated. Testosterone, making their brain bigger and wanting to dominate. High hormones result in personal hermaphrodism, medium results in normality, and low results in nunnery. Estrogen causes the desire for peace and love, and testosterone causes the desire for freedom. A male without a feminine side is a malfunctioning asexual like sherlock holmes.

Oh yeah, one thing I forgot to mention. Yes, there is a crisis, the transexual does feel "trapped" in the wrong body.
But this isn't just a crisis unique to the transexual, it is a crisis also shared with the philosopher and human mind. Why are we born into human bodies when we could have just as soon be born a wolf, or a frog, or a girl in Japan?
And even more pressing question, a crisis, is the crisis that we are running out of time, we will all die. We will all die and yet noone actually knows what will happen to us. Noone actually knows. I would say this crisis affects us all and I would even say the reincarnation equation is even more important than the DNA machine. We take for granted that we will either become nothing, or reincarnate into a decent life on Earth. But we don't really know for sure. For all we know we will fall into the center of the earth and be tormented for years upon years. The reincarnation equation is to be sure that we won't, is of utmost importance. Modern science is suffering from a delusion, minds with a bit too much autism, they all have a group delusion where they believe they will be eternally nothing when they die. The scientist community, led by the blind, is leading us to the path of ruination.

(FYI, I am at the library and there is a bunch of loud annoying black people so I can't think clearly. )

Far as transexuals go, the hormones are in a constant state of flux, fluxing from estrogen and testosterone. This is like tickling the mental funny bone, a mental massage it's how humor works. A calm, serene feminine road with mario, and all of a sudden a piano violently falls on his head. Increases the dopamine, dopamine increases the schizophrenia. Sort of creates a feeling of crisis like the hormones are always fluctuating, (I'm talking a frequency of once every two seconds) you have massive male and female urges constantly, hermaphrodism, like an animal who howls at a moon because their hormones are tickling their funny bone. I was gonna say something else but I forgot due to the black people.

Not sure if this is what I was going to say but, in the battle of hormonal flux, female wins because female cares about appearance and wants to look pretty, whereas masculinity only cares about actions. Beards are masculine (Apollos), shaving is as gay as it gets.

Though, I'm not sure if I understand lumbersexuals and I'm not sure if I ever will. Vsauce is a lumbersexual, and seems pretty gay to me.

Looks like BPS added new content to his video "Why Women Destroy...", I'm almost certain it was something like 12-13 minutes at most when it initially came out. Anyway, good videos about gender relations because they recognize the crucial thing I wrote about in the OP - men and women are not equal, thus they should not have equal rights.

They should not have the vote, either.
In my Timocracy outline I describe who should vote, and why.

Democracy was a compromise forced upon Athens due to the success of its own previous Timocratic system.
Success has been replaced by technologies to produce the excess that, in turn, produce superfluous masses that need to be managed.
Spartans had their krypteia, and they still risked being overwhelmed by their slaves a number of times.
Romans, often, faced slave revolts particularly when their power waned, until the Empire fell when these same slaves were the weakness the virus exploited to bring the structure down.

Voting is a power that should be reserved for those worthy of it, and those with vested interests willing to also accept the costs.

Instead, in our modern western systems, we have a pseudo-democracy, because what elite would allow the ignorant, emotionally driven masses to decide their fate?
Propaganda and sophisticated methods of human husbandry cultivate opinions to reflect the elite's interests.
The leader, such as the President of the United States, is but a figurehead they vet before he is permitted to run for President.
We see the routine of kissing-ass, and which groups have to be appeased before anyone has a chance of winning an election.
Women are just the easiest to manipulate using emotion, and to brainwash, using pop-culture and by triggering their innate motherly instincts and socially dependent reproductive inclinations.
When they gave women the vote liberalism became a contender.

The elites could then go from hard-line conservatism, to loose social welfare generosity, without risking a revolution.
They can use experts in the field Bernays established as marketing, to tweek vote behaviours and females were the easiest to seduce and exploit.
That's why its feminization and not masculinization.

Women go where there's power promising status, accessing resources, and long periods of stability to raise a brood.
It's in their genes.
Women also are quick to change their minds and change their loyalties, this is also part of their nature.
This makes them perfect to alternate between different versions of the same.
In this case Nihilism.

Trump is how the system is releasing destructive energies accumulating among white males, for too long forced to be silent by the SJW types, and females yapping endlessly.
It's temporary....a correction, like a heavy loss take in the markets to prevent a future collapse.

My understanding of gender relations in lions:

The role of the male lion is to protect the territory from other predator competition: hyenas, cheetahs, leopards and, most importantly, other lions. Because he is bigger and stronger he is better suited for this task - also, in lion prides there is usually only one lion, sometimes a few if they are brothers, or a father and sons, though I've also read that a father will banish his own sons from the pride just before they mature and become a threat to his authority.
The social position of a male lion in a pride is not secured - he is disposable and must fight with other lions for the right to reproduce. However, the male lion is also the boss, the authority in a pride - he eats first because he HAS TO. If he let females and cubs eat before him he would risk starvation which would weaken him in comparison to possible male challengers who would find it easier to kill him, take his females and kill his cubs. A male lion can't just let lionesses feed and then expect their help if another male attacks them, it doesn't work that way, they don't give a shit. He must take what he wants forcefully... if he tries to argue with females, or asks them, or takes some other inferior, beta-male action - he has already lost and will be made short work of by a more alpha lion.
Male lions can also hunt, and if they are nomads, typically young brothers in small groups, they HAVE to hunt or fight with other scavengers for food. In lion prides, the male lion is most of the time preoccupied with his own duties and leaves hunting to females but in certain circumstances he may join the hunt.
So we can see that the male lion enjoys higher authority in the pride which comes at the expense of his responsibility and dispensability.

The role of the female in a lion pride is to hunt. She has a smaller build which means she can run faster and has more stamina which makes her better at chasing prey, especially for longer periods of time, and she wastes less energy doing so. This is why lionesses tend to be the hunters - they are better at it, at least when it comes to more mobile prey, while they are worse at protecting due to their smaller size.
The social position of a female lion is secured - she does not have to fight other females, or males, to maintain her place or social status in a group.
Though some would consider it cruel and traitorous that a female lion will let her male mate and the father of her lion cubs be killed, it is necessary. It is because female lions are as selective as they are, letting only the most fit lions to reproduce, that male lions are such powerful and admired animals. It is natural selection at work regardless of how we "feel" about it and if we are to admire the male lion we must also accept and appreciate female selectivity which participated in creating it. The same applies to humans - you cannot consistently hold that some humans are more beautiful/healthy than others and criticize the opposite sex for having certain standards. Otherwise you get entitled beta males and fat girls expecting partners more attractive than they are.
The lioness has less authority in the pride but her task is less dangerous and her place in the pride is more secure.

I think a lot of this can apply to humans, of particular importance being the comparison between the male lion and male humans - male disposability is unavoidable, it is a part of nature. Men cannot count on women to protect them or to care about their well-being, and they especially cannot count on other men to do so.
Complaining about their issues is how females get their way because they have inherent value and so their issues matter. A male who complains will simply be ignored in favor of/replaced by a more useful male who isn't an effete whiner. If men want something, they must take it, if men want to be taken care of, they must take care of themselves. It is just how it is and how it has to be so groups like MRAs are hopeless; hopelessly delusional and hopelessly ineffective.
As Curt Doolittle said, paraphrasing: if men want to save their group, THEY must take action because foreign males will give them no mercy. The question isn't if women will or should be put back into their place. The question is WHO will do it, and if a male/group of males isn't alpha enough to do it, they will be overthrown by the one or ones who are. The male lion gets it... why doesn't the male human?

video 1:

video 2:

"Women like words" he says....defining Word War I as feminine warfare.

Bad Boy factor is when words are in tune with deeds.

A hidden, controlled, dangerous, volcano women can discover and enjoy by themselves, for themselves.
Exclusivity is central to women's psyche.
The lost gem, the underappreciated loner, the indifferent to all but to the special one.
Male sexuality is about quantities.
He must fertilize as many bodies (genetically - sperm/seed) and minds (memetically
- symbols/words/idea(l)s) as possible.
He must leave his mark behind.
Female sexuality is about qualities.
The rare, the special, the unique, the worthy, that which stands out, distinguishing itself, making an impact (physical/mental). that which appreciates her as much as she appreciates it.
To belong to an exclusive group.

You can see how men fall all over themselves trying to prove their value, their worthiness.
Mortality imposes a shelf life, a limit.

Male niceness/chivalry and female modesty are dependent on one another.

It is basically men and women agreeing - "Ok, men won't use their superior physical power to be mean to women, and women in turn won't use their superior sexual power to be mean to men".

So, men won't beat and rape women, and women won't sexually provoke men and use their sexuality to cause chaos in society.

This is necessary for civilization or any sort of higher, more powerful society, to exist.

Women have now broken their part of the deal. Feminism is basically saying "yeah, you men definitely should not be mean to women, but us women can be as mean as we want to, and you men have the responsibility to enforce this with police/military violence so that men can't retaliate"

Given that this is so, there is no reason for men to keep their end of the deal anymore, at least in terms of moral obligation. Of course, legally, this imbalance is still violently enforced by the system.

Indeed...

The song about cucking men. "You can look but you can't touch it".

Wrong, bitch.

I'm a male. Males are territorial. All territory belongs to me, bitch. And you are on my territory. This makes you my property. You are to either do exactly as I say, or to be violently submitted or destroyed.

Oh, you think this is immoral, whore?

This is the exact same thing the state does. Why don't you rebel against it, then?

Oh, that's right. Because you're a mindless whore who respects only power and has no moral concerns regardless of the pretenses you put forward.

Since Satyr brought this up a few days ago.

Objectification of women....
Men objectify women, they use them for their ends.
Women objectify men, they use them for their ends.

In how we have been trained to think about "objectification" we see what is actually the purpose of the "no objectification" idea.
Objectification is usually understood as sexual objectification of women.
Because men, seeing women as sexual objects, as ultimately their means for progeny is what is being attacked and meant when (((they))) talk about objectification.
Those (((feminists)))....

How can we not be an objective for another?
The other does not know us....can only understand us partially, never absolutely.
We are, for the other, a means towards their, subjective, end.
An erotic, sexual relationship can only be a coincidence of objectives.....never precisely harmonious, but close enough - tenuous.

Idealism creates a rift, because it feeds into extraordinary, supernatural absolutist, objectives no existing organism can ever meet.

Why are Modern females so miserable; so angry?
Because they bought the idealism of (((misers))), inflating their minds with a hyperbolic self-esteem, and surreal ideals no real man could ever satisfy.
Same goes for emasculated, degenerate men-children who have bought into the modern ideologies of miserly Nihilism. They can never find what they seek, so they project their ideals as an icon they will, one day, some day, they hope, will find.
Their Will to Power is corrupted by their idiocy.

It's not that we objectify one another....we've always done so...but that our objectives are presently beyond space/time, beyond the real, existing in our minds as romantic idealism, as the surreal....the supernatural, the unreal idea(l).

If to objectify means to treat as a means then yeah, men and women inevitably objectify each other.

I would go about it another way and claim that what feminists call "objectification" is actually "subjectification" or "personalization" - an ascription of of qualities/traits characteristic of subjects to some entities.

"Sexual objectification" makes no sense because sexuality evolved as a way for organisms - subjects - to reproduce themselves. It is something exclusive to subjects. To treat something sexually is to treat it as a subject.

Objectification would be more along the lines of treating a subject as an object - stepping on them as if they were a staircase, or something like that.

Not always 'stepping on them' or coercing them.
A means to an end is what a bad boy sees in a female, and she considers this 'hot' because he's not interested in her, as a person, but her as a means to his end.....
This does not mean he will rape her.
She will submit to him....and willingly make of herself a means to his end, as it is the nature of females to do so.
He must inspire her to his end.
Convince her that his end is superior to all others available to her.

Her end, is to mix with the highest possible possibilities, which is what genes are a representation of.
She wants to guarantee that her risks and submissions and efforts will be rewarded with the highest possible outcome: one with the greatest possibilities.

Beauty is about evaluated possibilities.
It's what we find attractive in females, and what they find attractive, beautiful, about men.

It harmonizes with my metaphysics.

AutSider wrote:

Objectification would be more along the lines of treating a subject as an object - stepping on them as if they were a staircase, or something like that.

A farmer depends on his farm animals to produce something, he inevitably treats them as a means to his ends. He objectifies them but that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't interested in their well-being, a farmer who wants healthy animals will take care.

Generally speaking, if treating a conscious animal and taking care of them, we will inevitably have to consider them as a subject as well because what they are experiencing themselves is part of who and what they are.

Just as we ourselves are subject and object at the same time.

What would it be like to only think of somebody as a subject?
We would have to take ourselves back and only consider what they are thinking.
We would make ourselves into an object for their ends, dial back our own will, as to not interfere with their will.

A woman would at "best" relate to such a man as one of her children, or more likely as a female friend with a lower status than hers.

They don't say to treat women properly because that would already imply that you treat them according to your own evaluation of them, you being a subject.
They say don't objectify, which basically comes down to be a doormat, don't make your own evaluation of them, that would actually mean you would be the subject and they'd be the object in that process.

A Subject is an intelligent entity and organism with moral status, authority, willpower, and thus is self-responsible, causes actions to be.

An Object is a victim, morally void, without autonomy, not responsible for itself.

Women like to claim that "men objectify women" when honestly, more accurately, women objectify themselves, thus avoiding individual self-responsibility and moral autonomy. Women avoid general responsibility (moral status, Subjectivity) because it puts them in the spotlight. As objects, instead, women enjoy the "victim" status, as it indicates the "privilege" of never being accountable for themselves, or anything or anyone else.

For example, with these mass-shooters in the media this last year, how many people are blaming their mothers for "being a bad mother, a failed woman"?

Nobody, because nobody thinks to blame women for anything.

AutSider wrote:

Male niceness/chivalry and female modesty are dependent on one another.

It is basically men and women agreeing - "Ok, men won't use their superior physical power to be mean to women, and women in turn won't use their superior sexual power to be mean to men".

So, men won't beat and rape women, and women won't sexually provoke men and use their sexuality to cause chaos in society.

This is necessary for civilization or any sort of higher, more powerful society, to exist.

Women have now broken their part of the deal. Feminism is basically saying "yeah, you men definitely should not be mean to women, but us women can be as mean as we want to, and you men have the responsibility to enforce this with police/military violence so that men can't retaliate"

Given that this is so, there is no reason for men to keep their end of the deal anymore, at least in terms of moral obligation. Of course, legally, this imbalance is still violently enforced by the system.

True.

autsider wrote:

As Curt Doolittle said, paraphrasing: if men want to save their group, THEY must take action because foreign males will give them no mercy. The question isn't if women will or should be put back into their place. The question is WHO will do it, and if a male/group of males isn't alpha enough to do it, they will be overthrown by the one or ones who are. The male lion gets it... why doesn't the male human?

Male humans are afraid to do anything, because everything is illegal and against the law, and they enforce this mentality by litterally torture, called Prison. Prison is specifically meant to scare people into obedience by threat of torture, I mean they litterally even admit to it as what it is.

Anyway, here's my second reply to this thread. There's a lot of complex issues, so I don't know where to begin.

Far as crisis goes, there always seems to be some kind of crisis going on, every day, alls I can do is sit back and yawn.

I have noticed and compared myself to Ftms (Female to males). I noticed that I am superior at combat and have better reflexes than them. Thus I think the whole transsexual thing is a spiritual quality, by spiritual I don't mean some Jesus, abrahamic religion, but something metaphysical. In reflection I don't think my trans-ness is the direct result of brainwashing by the state, it can exist for several reasons. Now, I'm not actually sure that consciousness was around before the Internet. I mean, we assume that our ancestors were conscious, but we don't actually know. I mean if they were conscious, consciousness would have to be around for thousands of years, that's thousands of years of reincarnation and being alive. It seems somewhat awe-striking. But if you roll with the idea that consciousness was never around till recently, then you get this mismatch of bodies and souls.

Now the idea of being a masculine man, does seem like a man who actively resists his feminine side. I'm no expert in the matter, I'm not sure exactly what they experience. But it seems my brain has an inherent component which hates their own body, while masculine men are cool with their lack of beauty. I don't think it's directly caused by the State, I particularly hate the state because they are immoral hypocrites, but it has no bearing on other parts of my personality, for instance I am more violent and alpha than most, sometimes I hear music and just want to smack a ho, same as you do.

And the other part of me actually has an opposite theory, that consciousness was around for thousands of years, and I simply got tired of being randomly born a man for thousands of years, and it was 50/50 random, and now I'm "waking up" to the ridiculousness of being in a randomly assigned body randomly throughout the century.  But this requires an understanding that the "feminine side" is actually what drives everything. For instance, I noticed that when I have the urge to compete, it makes me feel feminine inside. And when I'm around a beautiful woman, or a beautiful painting, it makes me feel feminine. And my masculine side is just, hatred anger and wanting to beat the shit out of people and eat meat. When I examine it closely, it feels like I just want to stand up with a club and yell "OGGGG" at the moon, eat meat, and beat the shit out of people. Now to me, this is "valid", but objectively less pleasant than sipping a cup of tea, feeling feminine energies, and luxury.

Now as your proposed solution to society, I'm not sure. It seems like freedom is dead, and the laws are just being printed out mindlessly, with no intelligent being actually at the helm. With feminists, there is no way to win an argument, and MRAs are just too pathetic to actually work together and accomplish anything in terms of actual change. I'd like to think that improving genetics would help politics, however I know some A stock genetics with high iqs, who are just easily brainwashed into the modern weakling bullshit narratives. Like geniuses at science, who believe that all races are the same, vote for only democrats, etc. So is truth and reason ever going to get back at society, or will emotional avoidance triumph? I try not to care, I just have faith and hope for a better future. I'm not sure if the plans you propose, plan A, B, C or D will ever work, I'm a bit different from other folk here because I'm not terribly fond of the human specie, I don't think any ideal society will ever work that well with it, unless it has some kind of radical change to it's genetic code. Kind of like lions, the inherent nature of lion existence is shitty and gay, if you are born a lion you have a large chance of being forced into homosexuality, and or killed by the alpha, its just the way the lion specie operates, it's not really the ideal society. Now most articles say gay lions are rare, however the page I got the information from was rather scientific, it says the male alpha exiles most of the other males from the females, and then they turn gay, makes sense to me. Also, I heard when a male lion impregnates the female, the sex is very short and mediocre. I can objectively say that being a lion sucks, just like I can say black rap music sucks. Black rap music is just, the result of an inferior and/or shitty culture. And its part of their genetic code.

Æon wrote:

A Subject is an intelligent entity and organism with moral status, authority, willpower, and thus is self-responsible, causes actions to be.

An Object is a victim, morally void, without autonomy, not responsible for itself.

Women like to claim that "men objectify women" when honestly, more accurately, women objectify themselves, thus avoiding individual self-responsibility and moral autonomy.  Women avoid general responsibility (moral status, Subjectivity) because it puts them in the spotlight.  As objects, instead, women enjoy the "victim" status, as it indicates the "privilege" of never being accountable for themselves, or anything or anyone else.

For example, with these mass-shooters in the media this last year, how many people are blaming their mothers for "being a bad mother, a failed woman"?

Nobody, because nobody thinks to blame women for anything.

Now you make a good point.
However the thing is, how do you know that this thing is really to blame of the parents? Or that their parents, raised them bad at all?

I mean, personally I would never mass-shoot anyone, because I don't want to go to prison or be shot by cops.
But on the other hand, society is just filled with rude assholes, who can't be reasoned with and would just as soon hit the block button than talk to you like a human being. I mean it is understandable why someone would want to flush such filth down a general toilet. Maybe it is more indiscriminate than targeted kills, such as a Serial Killer, and therefore more immoral, but immoral is it really? It actually seems somewhat noble to me. Not saying I would ever be a serial killer, or mass-murderer, but in a society filled with such filthy, unreasonable hypocrites, seems like its just a case of Sampson collapsing the temple of the Philistines. But Sampson isn't politically incorrect, and therefore he is praised.

It's just an analogy.

Females are the privileged gender, and so they are not accountable or presumably blamed for much of anything in life.

However if people consider the child weaning and raising, age 0-18, and the inordinate influence that mothers have on their children during their most sensitive periods...it seems like the most obvious fact that women "control" large aspects of life, particularly the ethical and moral quality of people in general. People learn from their parents after all.

And another point, it's not just weaning and child raising, but women also select males for sex, and thus knowingly or unknowingly beget all the negativity, badness, and 'evil' of the world. Women are seduced by "evil" men, and beget "evil" children. How much blame ought to be placed on Hitler's mother?

These are just examples and analogies, by the way.


Feminists may counter-argue these points that women are "oppressed" by men, and forced into it. For example, feminists will counter-argue that women are raped, and so, what should they do with the rapist's child? Abort? Raise it? Ironically, there are many rape-victims who actually do wean and raise their child. This is a truly deep insight into the feminine mind, that women would raise the progeny of rapists, criminals, "thugs", etc.

I believe it has something to do with women over-estimating themselves, they think, "I can control Man. I can control the Bad Boy. I can raise my rapist's baby to not become a rapist." (although such actions can have genetic links and connections)

If women are wrong then they would be indirectly culpable for the actions (good or bad) of their children.


At least nobody discusses these topics, at least not in Modernity, because of the "Negative" implications it would have "against" women, namely, that women are self-responsible, morally autonomous, and capable of causing good and evil in the world. Thus it would have a most violent reaction, "blaming" women for anything.