What else should I read to understand women?

Attached: weininger.jpg (2294x751, 791K)

Same for love for that matter.

Attached: 2011-07-15-Buni.jpg (760x244, 39K)

Well, stop reading shit like that or shit like Schopenhauer, and stop asking bitter incel misogynists for information on the topic they're must deluded and angry about. It's like trying to understand rap music by talking to my grandfather. Go hang out with women you're not trying to fuck and see how it goes.

Attached: 1714927c-46e6-4ca8-b946-5ca4288071ca.jpg (594x893, 54K)

Have you even read the book?

Those are only problems based on feminine standards of life

Lol? Okay?

>When the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by the Prussian sculptor Elisabet Ney in 1859, he was much impressed by the young woman's wit and independence, as well as by her skill as a visual artist.[203] After his time with Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."[204]

>hang out with women you're not trying to fuck
>hang out
>with women
>you're not trying to fuck

Attached: 1555615547499.jpg (798x770, 195K)

daily reminder that women actually think men befriend them on the basis of their sparkling personalities

Seconded. Females don't want males who are like that.

elliot roger's manifesto

source?

>Go talk to them, see what they're like.
t. doesn't understand women

lmao

The Holy Qur'an brother

>t. doesn't understand women
t. doesn't understand women

Once I had to read Bell Hooks for a class, Jesus Christ it was so shit. Just made no fucking sense whatsoever.

>Bell Hooks
>not bell hooks
Racist shitlord

What's the must read work of feminist lit?

Isn't the beauty in women the fact that we'll never understand them?

Wikipedia, judging by the citation style and quantity

Wow, that really is hilarious bullshit.

t. angry roast

He wrote that stupid shit in 1903, user (and I'm not female). It's hilarious antiquated bullshit from a self-hating proto-Nazi Jew in denial. He wrote one book, nobody cared except the guy suing him for plagiarism, then shot himself in Beethoven's old house and made his stupid book famous because of that. If he'd lived to be anything but a hate-filled 23 year-old incel, he might have become more than a Yea Forums archetype, but he didn't. They don't come much more pathetic than Weininger.

>just express your emotions, bruh
>weakness is not bad
>everyone is special
It's that kind of new age speak that caused millions of men to become deluded in the first place. Women generally don't want that kind of men. They want strong, independent and asserting men. Preferably those whose genetic material allows for greatest reproductive success.
Ever heard of the concept of orbiters. Many women are painly aware of that and they (ab)use those men for their own advantage.
not as hilarious as having to hear women talk.
>muh incel.

Even Camille Paglia kind of have to agree with him...

Instead of reading sexist, and genderist, identitarian drivel, you should learn regarding that by yourself.

read this and get a gf

worked for me

Attached: 71R6N-+s31L.jpg (958x1411, 188K)

>he wasn't popular lmao

Fucking roasties. They really do just make the same post, over and over again.

Attached: holes.jpg (520x588, 121K)

Is there any bigger proof women don’t have problems than the fact that they think problems only exist because they haven’t been talked out?

>men suppress their feelings and don’t share
>but we need to get rid of free speech because men are saying the wrong things

No women are easy to understand

>Women generally don't want that kind of men.
Yeah, and feminists would argue that this is a form of "toxic femininity" implanted into women to want to have tall and domineering men instead of a partner they can feel a genuine connection to. I don't think it's weak, either, to seek help and not be seen as dispensable by society. When hostage negotiators say "give us the women and children", a man is weak for thinking that's not right?

>responding to weininger's accusation by doing exactly what he accused you of

Attached: 1549251152636.jpg (800x797, 64K)

Never mind this retarded in general sentiment but
>beauty of women

That’s perfect, toxic masculinity is literally women trying to explain why they’re terrible. Toxic femininity confirmed.

Your diary tbqh

>such as suppressed emotions
Then why they don't like incels, who are vocal about their problems?

What is this psyop that every book you search on google images comes up this ratty ripped page and red wax seal. I never saw any of these "Classic Reprint Series" covers until a few months ago.

From my three year relationship I have learned one thing, and it is that Schopenhauer was right about everything.

I love her, but she is a total child.

Because incels are usually ugly and socially stunted. Some girls will overlook the ugly but no girl will overlook autism.

Because it’s also toxic masculinity that makes them not like incels. If you’re having trouble understanding, just assume women can do no wrong and everything is men’s fault.

But men overlook ugliness in women, you can prove this by trying to catfish with hideously deformed women. Does this mean that women are in fact more toxic than men?

Name me one feminist philosopher who has written about incels disparagingly.

So you’re saying women like incels

Or not talking about it makes them innocent?

Do you think those men are after serious relationships? They just want to fuck those pigs and dump them afterwards, or keep them around until they find someone better looking.
Also what is your definition of "toxic"?

I've been talking about feminism, not women.

Most women don't like ugly self-hating men with misogynist tendencies. Many of those men happen to call themselves "incels"

who cares what women want.

The ugly loser replying to the thread

This. Incels are a major social issue that needs a treatment of some sort, who cares that women don't like them
It's easy to say "let's help them and make them have some introspection and they'll be better people and get a gf" yeah no, they are simply too frustrated and violent to undergo any therapy
look i fucking hate incels myself but let's see what the solutions are :
1) find them wives somehow
2) put them all in jail
3) ignore them and let them keep mass shooting
myself i am proponent of option n°2 but nobody has the balls to do it so it has to be option n°1, there's not even anything shocking about it, many non western societies, islamic ones for starters, fix the potential celibacy issues that way

Actually in islamic societies the unequal allocation of women is institutionalized, not just the natural conclusion of the practice of free sexuality. In islamic countries there is far more inceldom and have been for far longer than in western societies, which is why the growth in every aspect of civilized society in islamic countries is constantly stomped by wars and other chaotic behaviour

I hate how true that pic is.

They were westernizing like everybody else, they’re unfortunately the number one enemy of the jews though, the most powerful people on earth

alright so then what is your final solution to the incel question ?

Blame enforced monogamy for entitled men that think they're entitled to a woman out there specifically for them. Monogamy kills male competition and instead shifts the blame to women for not being up to standards for their assigned male dreg because all the worthwhile men are unavailable. Sex should be a free market or everyone suffers.

Attached: 1531650312076.jpg (1020x1020, 91K)

Are you writing from XIXth century? Be aware of jews in that case, they will fuck everything up soon.

>read some feminist theory
big yikes

This + Wild at Heart

Can vouch. Before reading the book I just played WoW/LoL/SC/DotA/Diablo. Shit posted here.

Got out of my comfort zone, hit gym, cut out shit food, forced myself to go out every weekend by myself. Acquired a gf. Broke up, then I slept around. Now I'm bettering myself professionally and spiritually to start a family someday. Wish me luck.

Attached: omnitron.png (1024x650, 303K)

Wide-spread inceldom is essentially the natural conclusion of sexual liberation, of degradation of the marriage institution and family in general, which then gives women the freedom to express themselves sexually, which they do. There is no solution, only war can make it right, a war on women. One woman for one man should be the desired norm, not the satisfaction of women's sexual desires (which is at place now as the cultural norm). So your number 1 would be the closest solution to mine, because it is entirely possible, and it has worked before

>Monogamy kills male competition
not it doesn't, it just stops being excessively violent, because the pussy is there for everyone, but the quality of pussy is what the competition is about

Exactly, feminists are basically the same thing as any other tyrant

murakami, because for some reason they all love murakami

Brainlet

Anecdotally all the dudes I know are pretty misognyist. Every guy who actually gets laid more than two tikes a year is to some degree.Women are the niggers of gender and better off not learning about them and just bettering yourself to be charismatic. Theres a bigger gap to overcome if youre legit ugly though.

Feminists don't believe in toxic femininity.

>it just stops being excessively violent, because pussy is there for everyone
In other words it kills competition. Violence has always had a place in society, particularly when there are tyrants that need to be overthrown.

I'm just making a rational observation. Religions, jews included, make it a point to control women to control men with sex. They do this through sexual socialism in the form of monogamous marriage, banning sex outside marriage, and banning marriage with those outside the religion. This has multiple purposes
>incentivizes men to follow through the promise of a wife and sex
>incentivizes any male or female that converts to thus try to bring their entire family into the fold
>incentivizes men to be loyal as merit in the religion is defined in faithfulness and not in ability
>enables manipulation of sexual desirability by religious leaders via granting status within the religion to men at their arbitrary convenience
Now let's look at the social downsides of monogamy based on capitalistic principles:
>successful men who can have multiple wives are not allowed to do so, therefore reduces incentive for being among the top level of desirability and prevents these men from having many children and thus crippling their family's growth in size and influence
>top quality of men decreases due to lower incentive, furthermore high quality, available men become more scarce and competition (thus quality) of men decreases further as a result
>women can no longer compete to be one of the wives of top class males meaning marriage options drop substantially, less incentive to maintain good character as a result
>the pool of male dregs that wouldn't be married either way remains such, and if anything grows in size and worsens in character, meaning there is now a surplus of women who lack partners, resulting in polyamorousness and degeneracy among those who have given up on living to the failed social standard

Competition in our species isn't about individuals anymore, no matter how much your brainlet anarcho-capitalist dick gets hard for it.
Competition is at the group and state level now, and a state that mandates monogamy for efficient workforce and economy will out compete and dominate your theoretical shitty little free-for-all every single time. Get your head out of your ass and look at reality.

Wow, really? Link?

>In other words it kills competition
I just said it doesn't because the men who even have the capabilities of reproducing with high quality women (I am not being ironic here, just for the lack of a better word I use "quality" when talking about women) will fight for them as much as they would fight for any woman at all in a different situation (sexually liberated society), but if there is no safety net (a low quality woman), the chase for a woman will become extremely violent and has unproductive tendencies due to desperation(ER)

This is he most redpilled shit ever. Imagine this getting published today.

In another thread I posted a logical proof of the cuckold status of most men, here it is again.

If you are for the liberation of women then you are for women having the freedom to have intercourse with any given number of men.

In particular, if A is a woman you desire, you support the right of A to have sex with as many men as A desires.

Therefore you are a cuckold.

I already pointed out how in the second part of my post how it erodes competition on a group level, by breaking the meritocratic ladder and damaging success incentives all the way to the very top. A nation of lazy and obedient dregs is not productive as a nation of individuals with real goals.

Violence is just another form of competition. Saying it pacifies people that would become violent over sexual inequality is the same as saying it decreases competition to a level beneath a critical point for causing societal change.

Attached: EC03-PqUYAAUKjp.jpg (1077x728, 70K)

What kind of societal change are you seeking that requires ultra-violent male sexual competition? Just curious

He wants to be able to kill men for their women before dying of his wounds or age later

>I already pointed out how in the second part of my post how it erodes competition on a group level, by breaking the meritocratic ladder and damaging success incentives all the way to the very top. A nation of lazy and obedient dregs is not productive as a nation of individuals with real goals.
Except it doesn't do that at all, you're going to end up with a society where the men are constantly trying to backstab each other because there are no restraints or feelings of community.
Meanwhile, in my society, every person is given a personality test, facial attractiveness test, and a genetic test to find a list of optimal mates to choose from, they go on dates with a few to find the ones they like the most and everyone is guaranteed a physical, emotional, and genetically compatible mate and everyone is guaranteed a family unit and a direct, physical and emotional tie to the society at large. Women have babies when they're young, between 18 and 23, and then go on to higher education once the children are old enough to go to school, so that women can still chase academic/professional goals but only after making children and being wives so that the males who are working for that period of time have a family structure to support them.
Everyone becomes part of the state, and everyone and the state has a direct interest in maintaining and expanding, and the entire workforce is motivated and satisfied. Societal trust levels are at the absolute highest and there is no intrasocietal competition (in terms of sexuality and family values).
Your hypothetical society is literal dogshit compared to mine.

you're just a fucking commie posing as a right winger kys
i'd rather even the retarded libertarian jew you're responding to

>national identity
>"age-old sources of happiness"

Attached: 1560179634396.jpg (540x720, 33K)

Yes.

Attached: the rational male.jpg (323x500, 21K)

>rollo tomassi
lmao, just look at that boomer faggot
youtube.com/watch?v=P01E_ePLB3s

I'm not a commie or a right winger, those are brainlet ideologies.

>Sex should be a free market or everyone suffers
Did your professor teach you that monogamy is bad or are you just stupid yourself? There's a difference between wanting forced marriages and not wanting women to be sluts.

>top quality of men decreases due to lower incentive, furthermore high quality, available men become more scarce and competition (thus quality) of men decreases further as a result
Unbased claim that sexually desired men are also from a social or intellectual view the most desired ones. There's a reason why most eugenics movements in principle didn't support free mate selection.
>women can no longer compete to be one of the wives of top class males meaning marriage options drop substantially, less incentive to maintain good character as a result
I don't see how sexual competition leads to "good character". Also sexual competition among men is primarily based on sexual attractivity of women.
>the pool of male dregs that wouldn't be married either way remains such
Data suggests otherwise.
>surplus of women who lack partners, resulting in polyamorousness and degeneracy among those who have given up on living to the failed social standard
The exact opposite of what monogamy is so you yourself just roundhouse kicked your argument to death.

A Chad that lets all his feelings be known to a woman is no longer a Chad. She will distance herself from him. Just look at relationship problems. Guys let all their feelings out to their girlfriend and the n wonder why she's being cold. Listen to their actions, not their words.

o-o-oh my wife is fucking chad again tonight? t-t-that's ok I guess I just lost the competition haha I'll gettem next time......

google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/do-women-really-go-for-bad-boys-heres-the-science-that-settles-the-question-59409

Buddy, saying someone needs to get laid/can't get laid has been a staple in jokes and insults for decades, and cuckholdery has been an insult for centuries. Pretending like insults centered around peoples sex lives is some insidious way for deep cover femoids to threaten you over the internet just makes you look like a nutcase.

Saying "t. virgin" can be funny in certain cases, but 99% of the time when it's used on Yea Forums it's a circumstantial ad hominem.

Now, because you're a woman, I know you don't know what a circumstantial ad hominem is, and I know you think "ad hominem" means "insult," so I'll explain further. A circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is when you state that someone's argument is invalid because they have some sort of vested interest in making it, e.g., they are the fox who can't get the grapes and that's why they say the grapes are sour. Now, the problem in most of these cases isn't the insult itself, because people are constantly insulting each other on Yea Forums. The problem is that it's a meaningless and boring way to respond to someone. Its universality is also the source of its contentlessness. It's on par with replying "nh m8" to someone. Most Yea Forums users don't do that either, because why even bother, at that point? Why make a post that empty, a post that could apply to any circumstance, a post that does nothing other than register the flat "nh" of the anonymous, nobody person making it?

The simple answer is that you're either a woman or a normie. A normie who doesn't know how to fit in might post "virgin lol" because he's used to being in normie social settings where his animal instinct is to greedily clamber for any opportunity to claim a higher place in the social hierarchy than that occupied by someone else. A woman already has a high place in the meaningless normie cumbrain hierarchy, because normies instinctively value any woman's opinion because they all want to fuck her because that's the point of the hierarchy to begin with, and so she simply solves all her problems in life by exercising her limitless power to de-rank normie men by declaring that they are unfuckable.

So the question isn't "are insults ok on Yea Forums?," the question is "what kind of cumbrain normie and/or stupid dumb woman would make the 'nh m8' cumbrain equivalent post of calling someone a virgin? And worse than that, how fucking dumb do they have to be to write several sentences or even paragraphs that ultimately amount to nothing more than 'ur virgin' which ultimately amounts to nothing more than 'nh m8', on a fun comedy website where everybody else is habitually making each other laugh with their posts, just for fun and friendship?" Only normies and women could be so stupid, boring, selfish, and shallow. This is why when the time comes, normies will be nerve-stapled and forced to work all menial jobs so superior autistic people can make extremely good Jedi Knight: Academy multiplayer mods without being interrupted for once, in a perfect society.

a textbook on evolution. There is no going back though once you start looking at human behavior through that lens.

bless you, brother

also, to OP's question, read Chinweizu's Anatomy of Female Power

>Pretending like insults centered around peoples sex lives is some insidious way for deep cover femoids to threaten you over the internet just makes you look like a nutcase.

I wasn't saying ad hominem's are a good way to debate. My point was saying "only a femoid would use a sex related insult as an argument." makes you seem like a nutcase.

Seconded. Find a good evopsych book, humans are evolved creatures and the best way to study them is through evolution.

The current wealth gap for example is something that I suspect is only maintained through governmental pacification tactics like enforced monogamy (it also has the side effect of seeing to it that the winners don't win too obviously), a billionaire's mansion drives home the difference of lifestyles between people a lot less obviously than a significant share of society's women all refusing to be involved with other men in the hopes of catching the attention of a 1%er. History shows that most significant societal change only comes begrudgingly when civilians start taking matters into their own hands.

t. radical centrist

Nobody other than yourself is drawing an entire utopian societal model based on one topic. I'm just illustrating that the fundamental capitalistic incentive principles apply to sexual relationships as well. If you believe that capitalism is false and that the free market should be stopped, then we will obviously be in disagreement.

Capitalism exists as a model to try to maximize human pleasure and freedom and minimize human suffering and pain. If it becomes an inferior model compared to others, then it's to be tossed out and replaced.
The idea of capitalism for the sake of capitalism doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is not an eternal truth or intrinsic reality.

>Unbased claim that...
They are by definition the most demanded ones sexually/romantically. It is my speculation that successful men will have the supply (time and means) available for multiple wives in the first place, but not necessarily that they are the most demanded nor is that relevant to my point. There is no objective means to determine the correct people to breed therefore there is no objective reason to restrict people breeding, therefore restricting freedoms on that basis is a net negative.
>I don't see how...
Sexually/romantically desirable character, as determined by free peoples' personal selections. Remember this started off as an assertion that undesirable men and women were the result of enforced monogamy. A statist cannot determine for society what kind of people society demands.
>Data suggests otherwise.
[citation requested]
>The exact opposite of what monogamy is so you yourself just roundhouse kicked your argument to death.
You're missing the point entirely. Just like socialism fails to beat capitalism and only turns it into a weapon against itself, sexual socialism fails to beat polygamy and only turns it into a weapon against itself. Instead of polygamy at the top of society, you have desirable people that breed less and undesirable people who along with their 5 baby mommas collect welfare checks and burden the system while simultaneously polluting the gene pool.

>arguing that your wife would cheat on you without big state/church to tell her otherwise
Oh no no no back to the cuckshed for you Sven.

Things having unequal worth and demand in the eyes of individuals is, in fact, an intrinsic reality though.

So women are men, that are children?
huh?

Getting a gf won't fix your lives, anons. You need to fix yourself first

>There is no objective means to determine the correct people to breed therefore there is no objective reason to restrict people breeding, therefore restricting freedoms on that basis is a net negative.
There aren't except when there are. Up until then you made it quite clear that there is at least some objective standard which you reinforced indirectly again in this post.
>Remember this started off as an assertion that undesirable men and women were the result of enforced monogamy.
I haven't seen anyone actually asserting that.
>A statist cannot determine for society what kind of people society demands.
Says who?
>[citation requested]
Source grabbing when it's counterwise to your own point of view. Online discussion 101.
>Instead of polygamy at the top of society, you have desirable people that breed less and undesirable people who along with their 5 baby mommas collect welfare checks and burden the system while simultaneously polluting the gene pool.
Ah yes. The good ol' socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin metaphor. It's not making any sense either. Your whole argumentation is based on flawed assumptions but considering your previous posts with such sentences as >Oh no no no back to the cuckshed for you Sven, I will consider this discussion here finished.

>There aren't except when there are. Up until then you made it quite clear that there is at least some objective standard which you reinforced indirectly again in this post.
Indeed, I used the term objectively when I should have used the term arbitrarily. My specific position would probably be best described as "there are people who should and should not breed, but I do not trust an administrative group to determine such more accurately than free market demand to justify the included loss of freedom". Ergo my arguments based on lower quality procreation and the such.
>I haven't seen anyone actually asserting that.
>Blame enforced monogamy for entitled men that think they're entitled to a woman out there specifically for them
That's half of the issue anyway, women also declining as a result is elaboration in future posts.
>Says who?
Mises' Economic Calculation Problem.
>Source grabbing
Fair enough, I'd rather discuss principle anyway.
>Ah yes. The good ol' socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin metaphor
On the contrary I think socialism is small fry compared to capitalism. My point is that capitalism kills socialism just as it's killing societies that the general public demand to marry freely.

>using a nonserious reply to a nonserious post made by someone else as your excuse to leave on "no you're wrong"
Can't say I'm impressed user.

that oppose the general public demand to marry freely*

13 Rules: To Not Be A F**king Cuck

Attached: 13 Rules.jpg (850x1360, 92K)

All the diversionary schemes in western society are produced by intelligence (mafia) agencies like CIA and Mossad.

People get a long quite well when they're not herded into alienation among each other.

"incel" is just the Yea Forums version of "nigger" and, like the black community, they're trying to take the sting out by repeating it to each other

Just bee your self

The idea is to suppress (instinctual) sexual competition so that people work on other things. Without this, you have enormous amounts of time, material resources and effort diverted to the satisfaction of the most retarded passive urges.
>B-but the nap
I'm quite on the ancap side myself, but if you actually go through their writings, they were all very much in favor of at least very strong informal sexual repression.

Attached: 1563144286739.png (342x444, 96K)

link?

The things that women like.

Women evolved to be gangbanged by all the alpha males, which is why they are so much harder to satisfy in sex, while men get off instantly because we evolved to participate in a gangbang. This way the most dominant sperm impregnates the egg.

Wasn't rothbard cool with child sex slavery? Where's the repression in that? And when do our hypergamous Gen Xers and onward destroy society because clearly sexual repression is collapsing whether people like it or not.

based
i have some female friends which i don't wanna engage romantically with, doesn't mean i won't fuck them if they asked me, don't make the mistake and think friendship between men is the same as between a man and a woman, they are completely and utterly different

Huh, I mean I don't know why I thought lit wasn't comprised of incels but all these women threads and comments pretty much solidify it.

You may be referencing that Rothbard was OK with people buying children (it is literally adoption without the price control of zero but people get triggered by the word 'buying'). Also in practice this has been legally happening for a few years with rich men paying roasties to have their children and surrender all their rights on them to the father. Also used by homos.
I don't remember him talking about sexing the younglings and I'd be very surprised if he did. He had autistic fits about porn and how to enforce decency laws without the state.

The inceleteriat is growing every day because of women's unrealistic standards for boyfriend material.

The Second Sex

The fuck it is. The "celibacy" rate is the same for men and women, and basically every human who wants a partner gets one by 30. Some women might be picky at 18, but it doesn't last. If you want a GF, they're easy to get. If you can't make the slightest effort, it's your fault.

>Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution it is called pregnancy.
Here you go. They are programmed to bear children, when you don't give it to them their body will tell them there is something wrong with you.

>No Stendhal

You guys always disappoint

Attached: 9780306801945-us.jpg (379x500, 30K)

Why is that?

This
You don’t even need to. Just look at his face. Just see what he did to some woman for making a noise. He’s a child with an inflated head

What did he do?

>Men not acting like women is bad

Attached: A04AE24C-72FD-4E84-9DA7-2809513859D2.jpg (645x773, 61K)

>Incels are a major social issue that needs a treatment of some sort

legalizing prostitution?

The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi

Seconded. Hypergamy is the one takeaway that all men should be aware of.

Attached: 1372732170498.jpg (329x380, 43K)

>Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.

- F. Nietzsche

There's nothing to understand. It's like trying to grasp a storm with your hand. The mercurial is the essence.

except it was. Of course maybe not always as in a nation state, but a community, a sense of belonging. The idea of a nation state is a useful way to expand the "In group", which still necessitates an "Out group"

>You don’t even need to [read the book]
>Just look at his face
Jesus Christ fuck off already. Also your face is also pretty horrendous, I would avoid using this "argument" in the future

Are you so afraid he's going to destroy your pathethic Hegelian worldview forever.