The problem with the modern approach to gender roles is absolutely none of the old expectations on men have been lifted, and even more have been piled on.

Men are still expected to be big earners who provide for their families in a period where wages aren't following inflation, and both partners of a couple have to work to make ends meet.

Men(, like women,) are held to even more unrealistic beauty standards in the wake of celebrity culture, makeup, and photoshop.

We're still expected to not be emotional, but now, we're also paradoxically expected to be emotionally healthy and stable without needing emotional support from partners, family, or friends.

And on top of it, we (along with everyone else, honestly) are expected to be socially hyper-aware and considerate. But we have to tolerate being treated like second-class citizens by the people who expect us to tip-toe around their feelings.

This current wave of social justice isn't just leaving men in the dust, it's trampling them.

The two kinds of “women”

There are two kinds of “women”.

The first kind is the less toxic one (although still disappointing), the childish “woman”. The second kind is the vainglory well, the most toxic one.

Both share the same core nature: both are dependent and passive.

However, they are differences. The second kind may mimic the first kind, or the first kind may hide its of the second kind if it cannot hope better. Another difference is that the second kind will pretend to get out of dependence and passivity (only pretending) at the age of 75 or so, or before for enough social statut or money, while the first kind will never.

Or rather the baby “woman”, since a child at least, is capable of language.

So make legal all of what is illegal? Really? The same with drugs? Fiscal dumping? Copyright infringement? Dangerous medicines? Etc?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (via anarchyshrugged)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh … are you sure? Isn’t egalitarianism, equal rights? I doubt egalitarianism is related to communism, rather related to liberalism.

^ t h i s s s s ^

So I reblogged a post about Weinstein and the OP of that post blocked me. Over 100 people @ me to that post calling me stupid, a bootlicker, and other boring generic npc shit but yet out of 100 people none of them have actually tried to explain what he did nor actually give a argument.

Weinstein:

>accused by RICH POWERFUL female celebrities of raping them years ago, with no evidence

Nevermind the fact that he was never actually convicted and the fact that he literally dated one of the supposed rape victims and she had him MEET HIS FAMILY in the span of a few months he was:

>fired from his own company

>charged but not convicted of multiple felonies

>and his wife divorced him

These accusations were so weak and outside the scope of statute of limitation he wasn't even charged. At best what Weinstein did was legal quid pro quo which isn't rape.

If a woman fucks a man for a promotion and approaches a man with such a offer does that make her a rapist? No?

If not then then other way around doesn't make a man a rapist.

But what makes this so stupid about being called a bootlicker is:

1. Harvey weinstein is a fucking hollywood male feminist and a Democrat, two things I hate and disagree with.

2. Trump and Kavanaugh were both accused of similar shit by liberal women with something to gain.

3. Not believing a rich poweful hollywood feminist woman like Asia Argento making rape accusations doesn't make you a bootlicker but believeing a man is innocent does?

I mean Harvey Weinstein is a fucking creep but there are women who rejected his offers like Angelina Jolie and it didn't negatively impact their careers. But these women wanted to use his money and influence for their own career and now that they're post wall and old they want to throw the man under the bus.

But don't let my logical argument get in the way of "da elites", "da gib me dats".

There are more female pedophiles working for the public education system shielded by the teacher unions than there are hollywood rapists or catholic priest rapists yet notice how none of these other people ever talk about that.

A few catholic priest rapists means catholicism is evil and deserves to die and is a cult.

A few hollywood rapists or accused rapists means da elites and gibs.

A nationwide epidemic of female teachers raping male students and NOT EVEN CLASSIFYING IT AS RAPE AND THUS SKEWING THE STATISTICS? Nope, nothing to see here. Carry on.

Gynocentrism is just a incel myth.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9394354/boy-sex-offenders-register-years-naked-pics/

3 teenagers, one boy and 2 girls share nudes:

>boy put on sexual registry for 20 years

>2 girls innocent victims who dindu nuffin

It's ironic. It's tragic how you people claim to be against da elites, feminism, or whatever the fuck else but you all are just cucks. You call me a bootlicker because i don't support the rich powerful elite women like Asian argento over Harvey weinstein as if that makes any fucking sense

Fucking pathetic

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ARud0BAgVUI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrjjoJIVU4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgjvWLycoA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ATbegM9rtOk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnfMPEAzHDI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=901AmU8Y1Lg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MjV7BoRlF3c

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLgTA7MPEyg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMdL_pMj9s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBcVXtt4fWY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1tK2RQO0r8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VY9-3DuRd3Y

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gntM3mLki8M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6G3JOOLad8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=30EoAm_jsRg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ao6srzp7V8E

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ju-Q6KhyY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUWrMJEGqaQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ytiskossZz8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxdeLMgU3C0

Middle-aged men from disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely to be single as those from rich families, according to a new study that highlights the lack of social mobility in Britain.

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that men’s marriage prospects are linked to their upbringing, and that the disparity between those from well-off and poor families has widened in recent years.

The study found that one in three men from disadvantaged backgrounds were single at the age of 42, compared with one in seven from rich backgrounds.

The IFS said this was the result both of lower marriage rates and a higher likelihood of relationship breakdown among men from low-income families. Men from low-income households were more than twice as likely to be divorced as those from high-income backgrounds – 11% rather than 5% – and almost twice as likely never to have been married (36% rather than 20%).

The thinktank said it had long been established that the sons of richer parents tended to have higher incomes than those with poor parents, but it noted that the gap was widening. In 2012, employed 42-year-old men whose parents were among the richest fifth of households earned an average of 88% more than those from the poorest families. In 2000, the equivalent gap was 47%. The income gap was reduced to 66% after tax.

The IFS said men from disadvantaged backgrounds were also losing out by not being able to attract or keep a partner. Even among men in couples, the partners of men from richer backgrounds earn 73% more than the partners of men from poorer families.

“Female earnings are an increasingly important component of household income and so these trends significantly reduce the household incomes of men who grew up in poor families compared with those of men who grew up in rich families,” the IFS said. “And this is a new phenomenon. Amongst men born 12 years earlier, the differences in partnership status and partner earnings by family background were considerably smaller.”

Men from poorer backgrounds were twice as likely to be out of work as those from richer backgrounds, the study found. Only 7% of men growing up in the richest fifth of households were out of work at the age of 42 in 2012 – a year when the economy was growing only sluggishly – while more than 15% of men from the poorest fifth of households were out of work.

Men from poorer backgrounds are also more than twice as likely to receive disability benefits as those from better-off families, at 11% rather than 4%.

Chris Belfield, a research economist at IFS and an author of the paper, said: “Focusing solely on the earnings of men in work understates the importance of family background in determining living standards.

“As well as having higher earnings, those from richer families are more likely to be in work, more likely to have a partner and more likely to have a higher-earning partner than those from less-well-off backgrounds. And all these inequalities have been widening over time.”

hmmm

(cartoon by Barry Deutsch)

When welfare was restricted to whites, the big selling point was that a mother wouldn’t have to go to work to take care of herself and her children.

I find that when you break through the surface and get to the core, most arguments against socialism really come down to “people I don’t like would benefit from this”. Pretty much any other argument against it winds up being completely disingenuous, like the constant parade of jackasses that can’t distinguish between communism and socialism. Once you get past the obvious lies and rationalizations, it usually comes down to “I can’t stand the idea of certain people not suffering”.

The issue is that socialism comes from the left wing, and the left wing always pulls towards communism (an actual fact which can be explained, but too long).

That said, about the cartoon: picture #1 is about insurance, which is far from a socialist monopoly, picture #2 is about minimal redistribution which is as much a common religious faith, picture #3 is just non‑sens, since one cannot force the economy (and picture #2 make it useless). Then, picture #4 about “people I don’t like would benefit from it” makes me think about a common left wing dogma, which is “people I don’t like should be my slave”.

Better liberalism than socialism. Liberalism comes with #1 and #2, is typically aware #3 is non‑sense and solve #4 by strictly equal rights (which is far from a socialist faith).

Frustration and feminism

In feminist (and feminine) language, frustration is translated as either assault or conspiracy, depending on the context or opportunity.

@wizivizi replied with:

Taken this: a polygamous “ woman ” has a relationship with a man with high social status. The “ woman ” discover she’s not the favorite, is frustrated and changes past events into “ rape ”. Who is changing the facts? The man or the “ woman ”?

By the way:

Abortion vs …

“women” and feminism: proud of killing future babies.

Some men (some mgtow): happy to create new life forms to be substituted to the latter.

@wizivizi reacted with:

“ Women must be careful and men must be forced‑to ”, translates to “ women are less responsible than men ”. How “ women ” could be careful when their responsibility is minored compared to that of men? Also in the context of actual facts, how women could be careful when they are polygamous? (ex. more single men than single “ women ”).

That said, the topic is about comparing “ women ” being proud of abortion to men being proud of creating new life forms. Abortion on its own is another topic.

I believe that may be the best documentary about “sex bots” I’ve seen/listened so far, although I’ve just seen/listened very few.

Very interesting points I strongly believe in, are introduced: sex is not the best thing “sex bots” are able too, most of the design work is dedicated to their head, personality, mood and language ability (“women” badly lack the latter, if they don’t get their tribe approval). An engineer says, sex is more a kind of Turing test for “sex bots”, these new life forms being more intended to be social and a compagnon for every day life. On the other side, we can hear from someone else, the typical feminist rhetoric: “men are creating a new life form without consent, to possess it, beat it and rape it”. This self‑claimed “ethic and AI theorist”, which is in fact a feminist, seems to not realize that’s precisely the rhetoric which makes “women” less and less social (if they ever was) and more and more repulsive, to the point their replacement has already begun.

Note: you must log into YouTube to see the above video, which is age restricted, although there is not that much explicit images.

In reply to this, @wizivizi said:

MGTOW is not promoted by elites, that’s just that “women” and hence the crowd, started to “care” only when some high social status men too, started to be really fed up with “women”. Except they were not the first ones, even more low social status men too, are fed up with “women”, since longer, but it was just making “women” and hence the crowd, laugh at it.

MGTOW does not make us fight, this is a spontaneous movement of men who don’t want to tolerate it anymore. By “it”, I mean the increasingly toxic poison which is gynocentrism. Notice the TOW in MGTOW, stands for Their Own Way. How could you fight someone when you go your own way?

80% of men only want the top 20% of women.

That joke … Even the average “ women ” will get 7/10 on any “ dating ” website. There are out there even “ dating ” website promoting ugly “ woman ” (whatever ugly means) as being able of language unlike others average “ woman ” (which is obviously a lie, like all others from “ dating ” website).

Is that post from a “ woman ” jealousing some others “ women ”?

Also, you missed the point of the post you quoted: it’s about “ woman ” as lying objects / commodities. Why object / commodity? Because it acts like this; as some MGTOW says, “ if you behave like a commodity, you’re a commodity ”. Would you jealouse any “ woman ” for being able of language, for not being dependent and passive? Obviously not, but you (like any others) do jealouse a “ woman ” for being a better object / commodity than you assume you are.

The Earth is not over populated. Its over greeded. We suffer from lack of values for a human being.