Are w*men's brains unironically diseased? I can't imagine inflicting "books" like these on myself, not even if I was being paid. Yet they seem to even enjoy them.
You can understand a lot about a person or a whole culture by their entertainment. The stories they think of and love to hear/read shine a revealing light on their psychology (see for instance the childish ridiculousness of ind*an movies and tv shows, or the trashiness of amer*can tv). If we analyze the f*male psyche with this principle in mind, the conclusion is inexcapable: w*men (even modern, educated w*men in first world countries) are mentally diseased. Torn between their basest desires (being used as sex toys by brutal men) and the shame they feel about it (self-love and "empowerment" books).
They're also incredibly limited both in imagination and in their interests. Their phisolophical scope is extremely narrow, and can be summed up with "I want a hot guy to release good quality semen in my vagina and expend his resources on me and only on me". All their claims of intellectual parity with men are just a feeble attempt to deny this reality, and the anger, hateful and histerical way they insist on these claims reveals their true nature.
Is there any hope of fixing the f*emale mind so men and w*men can reach a mutual understanding and start cooperating in the building of civilization, instead of squabbling and resenting each others? At the moment, every time men add a brick, w*men bitch about its size or position or color and then do their best to remove it just because it was put there by a man. Will it ever end?
>can reach a mutual understanding and start cooperating in the building of civilization Unironically, read about DH Lawrence's "sex in the head" concept and his gender segregationist ideal
>After all, Lawrence eventually came to repudiate the idea of any sort of fundamental androgyny and to claim that men and women are radically different. In Fantasia of the Unconscious he writes, “We are all wrong when we say there is no vital difference between the sexes.” Lawrence wrote this in 1921 intending it to be provocative, but it is surely much more controversial in today’s world, where it has become a dogma in some circles to insist that sex differences (now called “gender differences”) are “socially constructed.” Lawrence continues: “There is every difference. Every bit, every cell in a boy is male, every cell is female in a woman, and must remain so. Women can never feel or know as men do. And in the reverse, men can never feel and know, dynamically, as women do.”
>Lawrence saw relations between the sexes as essentially a war. He tells us in his essay “Love” that all love between men and women is “dual, a love which is the motion of melting, fusing together into oneness, and a love which is the intense, frictional, and sensual gratification of being burnt down, burnt into separate clarity of being, unthinkable otherness and separateness.” The love between men and women is a fusing—or a will to fusing—but one that never fully takes place because the relation is also fundamentally frictional. Again and again Lawrence emphasizes the idea that men and women are metaphysically different. In other words, they have different, and even opposed ways of being in the world. They are not just anatomically different; they have different ways of thinking and feeling, and achieve satisfaction and fulfillment in life through different means."
>Torn between their basest desires (being used as sex toys by brutal men) and the shame they feel about it (self-love and "empowerment" books). Surprisingly true for a shitpost. This dissonance is at the core of modern female psychology
Gavin Jackson
>If we must suppress our masculine and feminine natures in order to be friends with the opposite sex, in what way then do we actually relate to each other? We relate almost entirely through the intellect. Lawrence writes, “Nowadays, alas, we start off self-conscious, with sex in the head. We find a woman who is the same. We marry because we are ‘pals.’” And: “We have made the mistake of idealism again. We have thought that the woman who thinks and talks as we do will be the blood-answer.” Modern men and women begin their relationships as sexless things who relate through ideas and speech. The man looks for a woman, or the woman for a man who thinks and talks as they do; who “knows where they are coming from,” and has “similar values.” They might as well not have bodies at all, or conduct the initial stages of their relationships by telephone or email. Indeed, that is exactly the way many modern relationships are now beginning.
>But the primary way men and women are built to relate to each other is through the body and the signals of the body; through the subtle, sexual “vibrations” that each gives off, through the sexual gaze (different in the male and in the female), and through touch. No real, romantic relationship can be forged without these, and without feeling through these non-mental means that the two are “right” for each other. We cannot start with “mental agreement” and then construct a sexual relationship around it.
William Butler
> phisolophical > I want a hot guy to release good quality semen in my vagina and expend his resources on me and only on me
U said it bro not me
Isaac Ortiz
And here we see the f*male's last counterargument when she knows she has been exposed for the empty hole she is: denying her opponent access to her hole, or (like in this case) access to other women's hole. Examples of this cope include: >have sex >you're just mad women don't like you >incel
Brandon Gray
Women actually hate trannies, more so than men. Men fuck trannies all the time, women just use them as virtue signalling tools
We live in a time where shitposts are more insightful than bestselling books by sociologists or psychologists.
The fact that modern women are tormented by a cognitive dissonance of a magnitude never experienced before in our history (because for the first time, women are called to be on equal footing with men instead of just being women) is obvious, but academics are too cowardly to mention it.
Women use everything as virtue signaling tools. Trannies, blacks, refugees, etc. They don't really give a shit about any of them, they just use them as accessories to appear better, and therefore more appealing to hot guys with good quality semen to pour in her vagina and vast resources to expend on her.
Jack Miller
I just prefer not to cuss.
Adam Rivera
This is about literature, roastie.
Jeremiah Clark
/r9k/ used to have this chart ranking men from alpha to beta delta gamma and omega, and it had two ranks for each one: alpha plus and alpha minus, beta plus beta minus etc
Alpha plus was true alpha males, men who "seem to have it all" I remember it said, but alpha minus were fratboy faggots who may get a lot of pussy but are little better than horny chimps. Underneath the betas there were the deltas which are basically losers with no motivation who are content to remain unremarkable background characters their whole lives, omegas at the bottom can be dignified spergs or total chrischans, and then sigma pluses are weirdos who find a way to thrive while being unconventional
Maybe silly but always stuck with me. Also remember, no normal society has women running rampant and defines itself according to the whims and tastes of women. The normal state of society is women segregated and men basically respecting eachother and most of your time is spent respecting other men on the basis of their achievements and behavior, not obsessing over sex with women, the gayest hobby of all time.
Joshua Ross
>The normal state of society I'd say the "healthy" state. "Normal" is such a vague word.
Jack Powell
I remember that chart.
I wonder how many of us style ourselves as sigma pluses but are actually deltas or omegas.
>Are w*men's brains unironically diseased? I can't imagine inflicting "books" like these on myself, not even if I was being paid. Yet they seem to even enjoy them. Okay, so they have different interests from you. Wow. Women have a narrower IQ range than men, and are more interested in people than ideas. However, if you think this makes them subhuman you're an elitist neckbeard with no emotional intelligence.
if you're posting here you already know the answer
Connor Kelly
>"I want a hot guy to release good quality semen in my vagina and expend his resources on me and only on me" I'd prefer an obedient sub in a cage who'd lick my cunt while fruitlessly humping my leg who kept his nose entirely out of the rest of my life, but you wouldn't know that because you go around making assumptions instead of asking questions.
Justin Roberts
Fuck off, tranny.
Liam Sanders
>Okay, so they have different interests from you. Don't try that subjectivity bullshit argument. There is a threshold beaneath which a person simply becomes inferior, not simply "someone with different interests". If somebody likes to eat literal shit, he can't claim that shit is as good as fine cuisine because "taste is subjective, some people just like different things".
>more interested in people It's not only that. They're incapable or uninterested in 90% of people's psychology, they only care about the parts connected with romance, sex and feeling "empowered and successful" according to the standards modern feminism and tv has set for them.
If they were truly interested in people, they'd understand our psyche better than men. Instead, the reality is that these dumb bitches are still constantly writing and reading millions of books on the subject "why men act like this? what do men want in a woman?" etc. And all those books do nothing but regurgitate stereotypes. They clearly still don't understand shit about their principal object of investigation. They're retarded, not just more interested in people than ideas.
Joseph Williams
Are there any books at all on this phenomenon?
Xavier Perry
I'LL SHOW YOU WHEN MY 4K PAGES PHILOSOPHICAL NOVEL ABOUT A GUY SPENDING ONE AFTERNOON STARING AT A MOLD STAIN ON THE CEILING WILL GET PUBLISHED!
>I'm not like the other girls tee-hee Yeah no, you're exactly like them. You're all the fucking same. Even the sentences you use are usually the same, word for word.
Ryder Hughes
Yes but they don't get published. I unironically have one in my drawer right now.
Ryder Reyes
My foot is 7.8' from the tip of my toe to my heel. I was born this way.
Juan Flores
>I'm different from the other women, look how edgy and cool I am! I use cuss words like "cunt", just like you guys! The f*male human simply can't avoid revealing its true nature everytime it speaks. She tries to hide her inferiority, but since she doesn't even realize where it lies, she's unable to do so.
Also no, you wouldn't prefer a little sub in a cage. You're a w*oman, which means that you want what all w*men want: a man stronger than you to take control of your life and protect you, support you, and give you strong healthy children that will love you. Anything else will make you hopelessly unhappy and frustrated. Biology is destiny. Your cunt is a cage.
Mason Lewis
Is he wrong though? I feel like the only reason somebody would be thinking about women as much as you is if they came to some belief that they can’t get a woman despite wanting one. You can get a woman my friend, if this makes you upset then think about why
Isaac Rodriguez
Look up ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. It's not reddit to say that these make for boring discussion. Especially when it's all women and simps ever say. At least the other guy is putting in effort and saying things.
Noah Rivera
>Don't try that subjectivity bullshit argument. There is a threshold beaneath which a person simply becomes inferior, not simply "someone with different interests". If somebody likes to eat literal shit, he can't claim that shit is as good as fine cuisine because "taste is subjective, some people just like different things". Okay, but in this case, their interests are normal, healthy, and shared by most of the population. It's normal to be interested in people and relationships more than convoluted abstractions of thought.
>they only care about the parts connected with romance I would object to this on empirical grounds. Friendships, jealousy, mother-daughter relationships- basically all relationship types- feature in the shit women like. And there's nothing wrong with romance, your attempt to materialise it and make it something degrading is pretty gay.
Yes, she's wrong. I'm over 30 and married, and love my wife, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize women's true nature. This post was just something I typed in 2 minutes because I was bored, it's not like I always think about women (mostly because I feel there's nothing left to discover).
Talk with guys who have no problem getting pussy, and they'll tell you the same things: women want a tall, cocky-funny guy with a good job. Someone that fucks them rough in the sheets but then treats them well outside. Someone they can brag to their friends (this is essential). They're all the fucking same. It's not their fault, but it's a reality, so it shouldn't be denied just because it hurts their fee-fees.
Samuel Scott
>It's normal to be interested in people and relationships more than convoluted abstractions of thought. First of all, "normal" does not equate "good" or "healthy" or "desirable" or "laudable". Second of all, I feel like for men it's not normal at all to only be interested in romance and sex. But it is for women. Hence the psychological sexual dismorphism highlighted in the OP.
>there's nothing wrong with romance Not in romance per se maybe, but if you're interested in only one or two aspects of the human experience you're a midwit. And if, like women, you deny it, you're a seething butthurt midwit.
Wyatt Roberts
>tries to deny that women are shallower than men and intellectually worthless >posts a pic proving exactly that
Juan Wright
I dont know many women closely but I think you are projecting your fantasies. The women I have known read very little but will read modern classic pageturners. my mother and her bookclub just read manbookers and my mother has read the complete works of Dickens, Hardy and loads of middle English literature which is more than can be said of most here
>Friendships, jealousy, mother-daughter relationships- basically all relationship types- feature in the shit women like But they always, ALWAYS tackle these subjects in the most clichéd, shallow possible way. They never dig below the usual stereotypes.
In women's entertainment (movies, tv series, novels) you'll find always the same characters: >MC is a mediocre girl with no real qualities but who's still somehow highly desired and will be successful at the end of the story. >nagging, controlling mom. >abusive, controlling father or >absent, kinda dumb father (Homer Simpson type). >guy she likes because he's tall, handsome, cocky (which they mistake for confident) and all girls want him (preselection is essential for women: other women MUST want him, because that means he's high quality). >rival girl who is slutty, bitchy, a liar and who tries to steal the guy from the main character but ultimately fails because he only wants the MC. >pathetic beta guy that follows the MC like a puppy and only serves to create a love triangle even though it's obvious the MC will choose the cool guy. >every other guy is essentially furniture. They don't exist. They have no sexual identity or impulses. They don't matter. After a while, you start to notice these patterns and to ask yourself what kind of mind can enjoy them.
Gabriel Perez
>I dont know many women closely I do. I had female cousins, female schoolmates, female coworkers, girlfriends. They're ALL like that. Regardless of their ethnicity or intelligence. They're all like that. It's uncanny.
>modern classic pageturners Does not compute. If it's modern how is it a classic? Give some examples.
>my mother has read the complete works of Dickens, Hardy and loads of middle English literature Yeah, my mother also has a lot of classical literature and even latin and greek authors. They feature prominently on her bookcases, so all the guests can see them. She actually read many of them (she has a literature degree), and will occasionally namedrop them in conversation. She never gets past the most shallow level of interpretation (even in books she claims to love, like "Wuthering Heights" or "The Leopard") and her nightstand's drawer is full of crime thrillers and romance novels. Which is what she ACTUALLY reads. The rest is just for appearances and hasn't really been read in 20-30 years. They're all like that, user.
Owen Wood
Based. I'd add Animorphs too.
Zachary Gutierrez
>First of all, "normal" does not equate "good" or "healthy" or "desirable" or "laudable". 'Normal' is our best guide to healthy human behaviour. If something is normal, it's led to good outcomes in the past. It's high fitness behaviour. To criticise women for their normal healthy preference of relationships over philosophy just seems silly to me. You're the one liking shit more than good food in an evolutionary sense. You happen to have a strange mutation that drives you into abstruse philosophical musings, and you're criticizing them just for having different programming.
Btw, we haven't even talked about low IQ men. Sportsball is at least as 'shallow' as romantic literature but I don't look on men who like sports. They just have normal, healthy programming which makes them enjoy vicarious competition.
>'Normal' is our best guide to healthy human behaviour. If something is normal, it's led to good outcomes in the past. It's high fitness behaviour. Don't try to use ideas you don't master. In evolutionary terms, "normal" simply means "good enough, for now". When environmental conditions change, so MUST the normal, otherwise it becomes obsolete. And as a social species, our environment is the society we live in just as much as the natural environment. Also, there are always abnormalities that end up being BETTER than the normal: the advantageous mutations that drive evolution forward.
So no, "normal" doesn't necessarily mean "healthy" and abnormal doesn't necessarily mean bad. When dodos were discovered by humans, it was normal for them to be friendly and defenseless. A cautious and dangerous dodo would've been abnormal. Guess which one would've been healthier.
>You happen to have a strange mutation that drives you into abstruse philosophical musings A good percentage of men seems to have it, as opposed to virtually no w*men. That's not a weird exceptional mutation, it has been the foundation for our philosophical, social and technological development. Women lack it, so they're inferior in all those areas. But they're great when it comes to shittalking coworkers and whining about guys.
Brody Flores
>I don't look on men who like sports If a guy only likes sports and can only think and talk about that, I do look down on him. As should anyone. He's intellectually very limited, and therefore inferior. Like w*men.
Chase Lee
Fuck this glorification of normality. Normality is just a kind name for mediocrity, and mediocrity shouldn't be glorified. It's an unfortunate fact of life, like jobs, cancer or w*men, it shouldn't be considered positive or desirable.
Theb why is beauty abnormal? Being exceptionally good looking must harm reproductive fitness or something according to you
Noah Foster
>Does not compute. If it's modern how is it a classic? Give some examples.
You're on a lit forum and you've never heard of the term modern classics? I'd say it's anything published in the late 20th century that's critically lauded e.g. Truman Capote, Hemingway, Sylvia Plath.
My mother isn't like that though. Apart from manbooker type books she reads about ancient human history and gardening for example.
Think about all the plebs out there who paly video games and watch I dunno peaky blinders. That's the male version of reading chicklit wouldn't you agree
Wyatt Foster
>environmental conditions change It's true they've changed, but not in any way significant to our argument. It's still in women's interest to care about relationships more than philosophy. They'll have better peer networks, better social skills, more interest in men and sex, and end up with better mates. They definitely outcompete philosophical, intellectual women in the competition for mates.
I don't glorify normality, I just don't feel like I can criticize people for being normal and obeying their core programming.
He's one of those who thinks they understand evolution but has only a surface comprehension of the theory and its consequences. >Bro you're in the 99th percentile for IQ and looks, you're disgusting!
Austin Barnes
No, yeah, I know there are outliers in both genders, but in my decades on this planet I couldn't help but notice that the average woman's intellectual interests and abilities are markedly different from the average man's.
Ryan Morris
>It's still in women's interest to care about relationships more than philosophy Ok but saying that women are shaped by evolution to only care about getting high quality sperm in their vaginas and build a social net that can help and support them and their offsprings, is a roundabout way of saying that women are intellectually inferior. It might be evolution's fault, but they're still intellectually inferior.
Lincoln Rogers
Beauty is abnormal because it's not an objective trait that you can just 'have'. Being beautiful means being exceptional in some way. You'll never reach a state where everyone is beautiful. Here's a helpful analogy >in a stone age tribe everyone is squinty >an exceptionally beautiful woman is born who is not squinty and therefore beautiful >she outcompetes other women >in the next generation, it's normal to have functional eyes. In this generation, to be 'beautiful' you will have to have functional eyes but also be exceptional in some other way, like having light skin.
>Beauty is abnormal because it's not an objective trait that you can just 'have'. Wut? Yes it fucking is. It can be described with math, depending on your proportions and simmetry you're gonna look more or less beautiful to virtually everyone. They even made studies about attraction: they showed 100 random men pictures of 100 random women and asked them to pick their favorite. All men picked one of the hottest 3 girls and ignored the other 97. Beauty is objective. It's one of the blackest pills you need to swallow when you become an adult.
>You'll never reach a state where everyone is beautiful. That's true, but beautiful individuals are still both abnormal and better than normal ones from a fitness standpoint. So your claim that normality is preferable is still disproven.
Jose Powell
>It can be described with math, No it can't. That describes which women we find beautiful at this moment. In a million years, we might have evolved to such an extent that a woman who looks like that becomes merely average. This has probably been happening for a long time, with the number of women considered 'beautiful' not changing at all. If beauty was a trait you could just 'have', like a tail or blue eyes, everyone would be beautiful by now.
>That describes which women we find beautiful at this moment. No shit. Every trait is dependent on the moment, from strength to speed to intelligence to beauty. That doesn't mean that there aren't always specimens who are abnormal and better than normal because they're more beautiful/strong/smart than the normal specimen. Saying "but in a million years that might not be remarkable anymore" is an incredibly stupid take that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's absurd, just meaningless idiocy. Are you serious or trolling?
>If beauty was a trait you could just 'have', like a tail or blue eyes, everyone would be beautiful by now. You don't understand what beauty is or how evolution works. Are you unironically a w*man?
Colton Wright
>No it can't. Yes it can. There are even softwares that can analyze physical proportions and grade beauty. You just don't understand what you're talking about. You have very confused notions that make no sense and have no value, and you're grasping at straws to avoid admitting it.
Benjamin Miller
You're either drunk or retarded because you keep saying sentences that have no connections between each other and form no logical thought.
>Beauty is abnormal because it's not an objective trait that you can just 'have'. False. >Being beautiful means being exceptional in some way. True. >You'll never reach a state where everyone is beautiful. Also true. But these three sentences were completely disconnected from each other. They don't form a coherent thought.
Cooper Morales
Being beautiful is different from being strong. Are you unironically a retard? A species can evolve to be stronger but it cannot evolve to be more beautiful. That's the whole point I'm making; beauty is defined as exceptional and that's why it's not 'normal' despite being a desirable trait. You're fucking dumb if you can't understand this argument.
>A species can evolve to be stronger but it cannot evolve to be more beautiful. This might be the most astoundingly retarded shit I've ever read on this site, and that's saying something. It reveals so much underlying stupidity, ignorance and confusion about the world and about evolution. Oh my god you're such a fucking imbecile. Oh my God you're so fucking stupid that you don't understand the difference between a trait possessed by a species and one possessed by a single individual, or between a trait based on nuances (like beauty) and one based on having a certain thing or not (like having a tail or not) and so you claim that beautiful people either don't exist or are abnormal and therefore worse?
Oh my fucking God you have shit for brains. I've wasted so much time with a mongoloid like you, I can't believe it.
Ethan Gonzalez
>beauty is defined as exceptional and that's why it's not 'normal' despite being a desirable trait So you're admitting that your original statement that normality is preferable to abnormality is retarded. Beauty is abnormal but still better than normality.
In the future, don't try to engage in discussions which require an understanding of evolution, or a grasp on basic philosophy, or an IQ above 95, really. Please know your place and stay in it.
