Agreed, which negates a lot of extreme age gap fantasies. Women who have healthy relationships with their fathers aren't as hyper-sexual and have less interest in banging (much less marrying) men who look and behave like their "daddy."
The Destruction of Modern Women
- Thread starter Let God Arise
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cultural marxism women
Both parents are just as important as each other, I've known more than one girl who hated their mothers because they actually held them accountable and gravitated to their fathers who treated them like their perfect little princesses no matter what they did. They used their relationship with their fathers as enabling for their shit behavior.
Yes and no. "Yes," as long as the child is being raised within the confines of a healthy marriage.
If mom is strict, and dad is a pushover and they are undermining each other on major child rearing tenets, philosophies, and issues then I would say that this is not a healthy marriage which is why the women you describe "hate" their mothers. A healthy marriage will never produce a child that "hates" either parent (unless that child has a severe biological mental disorder).
I’m going to call bullshit on that. I see that idea espoused a little too much on this forum. A lot of you guys talk like it’s mens nature to be husbands and fathers and fine upstanding members of a righteous society.
No, I believe all those things are social constructs. I don’t believe men are wired to be husbands or fathers. Rather, men have a primal instinct to stick around and provide and protect for their mate and child while they need it most - the woman being vulnerable with infant and the small child being vulnerable themselveswise. That’s why burning visceral love, which is actually a chemically mind altered state, fizzles out after a few years. Time to go off and find a new mate to spread your seed and improve your genes chances of surviving the evolutionary battle. I believe leaders of advanced societies have harnessed these instincts and molded them into a form of societal conditioning that was a lot healthier for the whole - marriage and lifetime pair bonding.
That’s why the enemies of the west worked so hard to destroy the nuclear family unit and used women as useful idiots by encouraging them to throw off the binds of their social conditioning of the past and cluelessly play a vital role in the impending destruction of western civilization. It was genius actually, all they had to do was dilute the masculine while telling women, who seem to rarely be satisfied with what they have in the present, that they are mistreated and can have whatever they want.
No, I don’t believe men are any more inherently virtuous then women. Rather, men have a primal instinct to work together and protect their fellows and the tribe as a whole. Once again, wise leaders of the past have harnessed those instincts into social conditioning which was healthy for an extended society rather than just the small family unit or tribe.
My reasoning behind this - I’m interested enough in history to have read and heard many accounts of how men behave in wartime or any collapse of the thin facade we call society. Raping, killing, looting is the norm - even recently for the ‘civilized’ men in Vietnam and before them in WW2 and ect. I find it very amusing to see western woman strut around like they think their boss bitches when they likely are not aware of what happens to them when the cushy white western society they’ve been raised in falls apart, and they become little more than potential victims. Ironically it was rough men who laid the foundation for these cushy societies, rough men who would never have put up with the behaviour of todays spoiled women.
But it seems like I’m just rambling at this point…
The situation your guy is talking about is nothing more than women having their social conditioning degraded while men have upheld much of theirs. Considering that our societies have changed very quickly in the last generation or so and not for the better, it seems to me like a wake up call for women might be around the corner.
No leaders have harnassed anything - Christ came into the world and englightened men, and told them to marry. That's why societies became more monogamous.
This is completely backwards and wrong - marriage selects for the good women, and weeds out the rest. Marrying a bad woman is dysgenic, because those marriages don't last and the kids grow up damaged who usually fail to reproduce.
Good marriages produce good kids who have good marriages, etc, and the opposite is true. Thus it's a virtuous cycle, and the only way to break it is with social conditioning. Hence the feminism movements, which take good families and turn them into bad families which kills out that bloodline.
The "daddy's little princess" shtick is also a recipe for disaster. Girls who never heard the word "no", who feels entitled to whatever they want, and expect their future husband to treat them the same.
We’ll one thing is indisputable… that story has been retold countless times over millennia with the intent of guiding mens actions so…
I've often thought about exactly this topic. Just how thin that facade of civilisation is and how a lot of women have no idea how vulnerable they are and how risky their behaviour is a lot of the time.
A lot of women are finding out in places where they have mass migration, Germany for example, how thin that layer of civilisation actually is.
One day they will yearn for the social order of the old days.
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Another model beat her to it:Apparently it wasn’t that bad so now she’s going to attempt to break the world record for men slept with in a single day, which is 919, and go for 1,000 men.
OnlyFans Model Lily Phillips Is Going to Have Sex With 1,000 Men in 1 Day—a World Record
Despite the tearful aftermath, OnlyFans model Lily Phillips says she has no regrets about sleeping with 100 men in one day.www.vice.com
Bonnie Blue claims world record by sleeping with 1,057 men in 12 hours
Bonnie Blue, 25, from Derbyshire, is reported to have topped the tally previously set by Lisa Sparks when sleeping with 919 men within 24 hours in 2004.
www.dailymail.co.uk
I do not even know how 1000 men in a day is physically possible given the time constraints. Even if you have 1000 men literally waiting in a queue each for their turn for the whole 24 hours that equates to roughly one man every 87 seconds. Unless a lot of gangbangs/orgies were occurring I can't see how it would have been possible.
And the thing is that while wise leaders of the past devised a system that was over all the best thing for men, women and society at large, I’m pretty sure it benefitted women more than it did men in the long run. I mean that I think men are far better suited to live a single life than women are. Men can and have sailed across oceans and blazed across continents without women being involved and they really only needed women for one thing. Whereas I think women deeply need the support of a relationship, not monetarily but emotionally and in general. Most women need someone to care about them and pay attention to them and hold things together when their emotions are wreaking havoc - essentially they want to be loved. Especially when they get older and the male attention starts to dry up.
It’s projected that in five years in America 45% of women age 25-45 will be single and childless. What will happen to womens mental health when they all start to get older? Plus I think there will be a lot of men who followed their hearts and dicks and made silly decisions when they’re young and end up getting burned by divorce after their wife changed once he put a ring on it or at least after she lost the tingles. Those men will want nothing to do with that legally binding contact again.
In short, while it may not have seemed like it in the short term I think women will be the biggest losers from the feminist/womens lib movement, and society of course. Who thinks that when all is said and done that women will blame men for the end result?
Hey guys, here is OP's private Facebook group in case you want to join:
For real though, I'm sure infinite examples of poor female behaviour can be found online.
If you're a single man and want to find that special lady, reading this thread isn't going to help. Instead, it's probably going to make you angry, demotivate you and focus your attention on what you want to avoid, rather than inspiring you and directing your energy to what you want to achieve.
That said, if you're just here for some casual entertainment... do read on...
For real though, I'm sure infinite examples of poor female behaviour can be found online.
If you're a single man and want to find that special lady, reading this thread isn't going to help. Instead, it's probably going to make you angry, demotivate you and focus your attention on what you want to avoid, rather than inspiring you and directing your energy to what you want to achieve.
That said, if you're just here for some casual entertainment... do read on...
In fact, marriage today does not select for anything whatsoever in women. Any woman, any at all, can very easily get married if she so pleases. To a decent man, too. Thanks to self-improvement culture, there is today a very disproportionate amount of high-value men compared to high-value women. Women have their pick of the litter, even if they are "post-wall" or mentally ill or what have you.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that marriage serves as a eugenic filter. It very much used to, but the aspects of it that made it serve that purpose have been completely destroyed.
The fact of the matter is, marriage does not exist. Not anymore. It does as a sacrament, but not as a physical reality, not as a social contract. I highly recommend giving this a read, I found it quite insightful:
Thread by @cirnosad on Thread Reader App
@cirnosad: Debunking modern marriage. A short thread. /🧵 What we regard as marriage today, isn't what marriage used to mean. Today we associate a marriage with a wedding, registration, a semi-official ritual and all...…
threadreaderapp.com
Do these damaged kids have particularly low chances of reproducing? I'm not really convinced that the impact on their chances of reproducing is very large. There are many different kinds of "brokenness" that a bad upbringing can result in, and some of them do affect this (e.g, men who become total faggots due to having devouring single mothers), but I think mostly you end up with cluster B types, who certainly do not appear to have any trouble finding partners.
I do agree that marrying a bad woman is dysgenic while marrying a good one is not, but as stated before, I don't think marriage filters these bad women out, and because there are so few women of good moral character available today in the first place, I think most men actually do end up marrying what I would very much consider "bad women."
The entire society has been tweaked, configured by our social engineers, in such a way that it simply does not produce women of good character. They do exist, but they are produced in spite of the society. They are produced ONLY by strong households led by a strong patriarch, where the wife submits to him, and both are decently virtuous, intelligent and discerning. At the very least, discerning enough to understand that homeschooling is the way to go. I think we all agree that such households are rare and very rapidly dying out, and that there are systemic forces in place that make it very hard to create one.
Men of good character, on the other hand, can and frequently do kind of just turn out that way on their own regardless of their origins. Men are not a product of their society and their upbringing anywhere near as strongly and immutably as women are. Men are, I think, usually defined a lot more by bloodline and ethnicity than anything else. Temperament and innate dispositions are very much hereditary. Epigenetics means you can change these things to an extent, and certainly some men are abnormally succeptible to social engineering (trannies are the biggest example), but in most cases, men are destined to become their fathers and grandfathers.
10 or 20 years from now, if the good Lord grants that I may live that long, I expect, and hope, that I will look at myself in a mirror, and see not me but my father.
Last edited:
A woman’s ability to mate, marry, and have lots of offspring is correlated to her looks. It doesn’t matter if she’s bad or good in character, it depends on her sexual appeal. Maybe in days past there was more to it, and there still is today for discerning conservative men, but the masses of men simply don’t care. If she looks decent enough they will attempt to breed with them.
I’ve known several broken, ‘bad’ or damaged women with tons of kids, like 5 or more. What they have in common is that they are attractive and even kept their looks after having kids, therefore they still attracted men as moms. Some also slept with tons of men, but they procreated and had tons of kids anyway.
I’ve known several broken, ‘bad’ or damaged women with tons of kids, like 5 or more. What they have in common is that they are attractive and even kept their looks after having kids, therefore they still attracted men as moms. Some also slept with tons of men, but they procreated and had tons of kids anyway.
I'm not seeing a huge correlation between women's looks and number of children. Plenty of obese welfare queens out there with many kids. Plenty of attractive women that sleep around and refuse to have kids well into their thirties and end up alone. But I agree with you that it doesn't have a ton to do with moral character either.
Sure, a good looking woman is going to have an easier time. But there are so many thirsty men out there who have no standards that it's not much more difficult for the rest.
For some reason, obese women have to beat tren fiends off with a stick.
Last edited:
100%. We are tougher and can endure loneliness and hardship to a greater degree than women (and we can hunt and kill animals without crying), which is why seeing a good looking woman without a boyfriend or a husband is like seeing a unicorn.
They were able to do these things because women weren't involved. In addition, every great work of art from Michelangelo's David to The Mona Lisa to The White Album to The Godfather Part 1 & 2 were created by men. So not only are men the great exploers and inventors (electricity, antibiotics, phones, airplanes, etc.) of humanity, we are also the "sensitive" ones and therefore create the greatest art.
"Need" is the operative word. They are indeed needy creatures and as a result find it easy to take, and much harder to give. When was the last time a woman asked you out on a date and picked up the tab? The correct answer is "never." It still blows my mind that if I would have never initiated contact with women and asked them out, paid for all the dates, and made all the first moves that at 50+ I'd still be a virgin.
You reap what you sow. Enjoy your cats.
Last edited:
Just because pickings are slim does not mean that the purpose of marriage as a eugenic filter is lost. It just means there will be a lot of failed marriages, and a lot of broken offspring. Broken marriages also have fewer children on average than intact ones.
Think of what's like to date a girl from a strong intact family vs a girl from a single mom. It's night and day. The women from broken marriages have no role models to look up to, and have no way to know how to be a good mother themselves. Few of these women will end up becoming a good mother.
So, good women marry and bad women do not, which is when marriage was a requirement for a woman to do ANYTHING in society, the entire world was better off. Women were forced to be good, the same way men are forced to behave in order to land a job.