The Philosophy of Men (Males)

Man here. This is all true, other than Beta von Humboldt. Also women can't love either.

Men occupy more extremes. Men are the smartest, men are the dumbest. Men are the best builders of society, men are the best destroyers of society. Men lose all their money gambling, men become the richest people alive.

Women seek for stability, men seek for the thrill for better or worse.

Also

>>"You can confidently claim that the world had long been a human-empty desert if only it had only contained men. (...) They would infallibly all murder each other shortly. The world does not know how much it in this respect has the other sex to thank for."

>>"Only among men you will find total soulless people, barbarians and subhumans, tyrants, callous executioners, somber religious followers, revolutionaries who preach murder and mayhem, enemies and murderers who can see humanity perish without shedding a tear.

are the feminist double standard of "Women are capable leaders is just that throughout history they were not allowed to lead" followed by "See? All men are evil because all the awful rulers throughout history were men!"

That men are more risk-taking is a well-known, long since established fact.
The more interesting question is which is BETTER. What is the good of the two?

Which is more important and better, the brain or the heart?

Risk-taking is often a dumb quality, though. Wouldn't call it brain. Not taking risks might as well be the brainy move.

Men fight only because of women.
No women no problem.

You are no man.

Men are the ones that fight. No men no problem.

Not taking risks never gets the big reward.

Schopenhauer please

No men no progress

Never suffers the big losses either.

I want to lick her.

The progress is worth is as our society attests.

Woman was God's second biggest mistake.

>Risk-taking is often a dumb quality

How is it a dumb quality when it's literally the reason we enjoy most of the fruits of 21st century technological progress?

And this isn't even a gendered quality; plenty of women are also risk-taking, especially now that they have the opportunity to be, so saying risk-taking is a dumb quality is flat out retarded.

Risk taking in traffic is a good example. Investing is another. Gamble. So on.

And the first was the man

...

That part was so cringey

No women still dont take near the risks. Its why despite all the financial assistance she could want she rarely invents things or starts businesses.

>No women

Shut up fag. Just because men on a statistical average are more risk-taking doesn't mean there doesn't exist risk-taking women you moron.

Exactly.

Chill out bitch i forgot a comma

Women are better investors on average. Men are overconfident and believe they can beat market indexes, women are more rational.

It's almost as if men and women are biological sexes of a species whose survival is predicated on passing on their genes through any means necessary in a cold and amoral universe but who find themselves living in a state known as civilisation which consists of cultural memes detailing abstract concepts that themselves propagate and survive based on their survival value.

Better? No.
Just more risk averse.
Taking risks is not inherrently irrational. Its foolish of you to think that.

Yes, better. There is plenty of studies to support this. Google around and take your pick.

And yes, there is a point where it certainly can be considered irrational. If you keep making bets when all odds are against you, when the risk of loss is overwhelmingly high. It's foolish to believe otherwise, to keep taking risks when the chance of success is extremely limited. That is foolish, user.

Women lose less, but make less.
That can hardly be considered better.

There is a point to where it is but you implied no such thing you implied that is was inherently foolish.
Risks must be taken its how you bitches have ridden on our backs theough the progression of society.

>Women lose less, but make less.
That's not how it works... What is meant by the words "better investors" is not that they "lose less but make less", but that they do make greater net wins.

If that were so then there would be more women millionares but thats not the case is it?

No, that's not what it means.

I actuly found the study. Its 1 fucking percent. Women also dont play the stockmarket. They save about half a percent more of their salary.
Thats 50 bucks a month is youvmake 60k a year.
This is not something to crow about. You are stupid.

You are so worthless.

>the study

All of this is 100% true, especially

>They would infallibly all murder each other shortly.

In every conflict situation, it's always the women who resolve and calm it. If you've ever been to a street fight you know.

/pol/ will deny it

This picture makes me HNNG

Men are blamed for war because until the last couple of decades, women have had no agency whatsoever.

Historically, those few women who found themselves holding the reins of power were among the most brutal figures of their time. People like Artemesia of Caria and Olga of Kiev are hardly icons of peace and harmony.

>it's always the women who resolve and calm it
y'know, except for all the male diplomats and politicians who negotiated peace settlements

I remember my edgy beta phase where I hated men and read Dworkin.

Then lost my virginity and realized men arent so bad.

I am not pol and i absolutely deny it. You talk out of your ass.

Because you are thirsty.

Can women be beta.
How would that work?

What do you mean "how would that work?"

Exactly as i said. I understand it from a male standpoint, but, i assume that there are diffrent dynamics with wome. Since they can have an easier time having sex.

I thought alpha and beta exclusively meant someone either being agressive and outgoing versus submissive and introverted.

So there is no male or female standpoint.

Well thats not what alpha and beta mean. So you are just using the terms wrong.

ITT: citing a bunch of opinions is fun

A lot of this is true

I don't think that a world led by women would be harmonious (it's also completely not feasible) but most bad things that happen are usually due to the behavior of men since they (as a group) have more power and agency bestowed to them on the basis of their sex assignment. Of course this also means that most good things that happen are also because of men, we just need to be able to acknowledge why this happens and decide if it's a problem worth changing.

It makes me sad that feminism has had led to so many decades of activism for the sake of women while men have yet to seriously challenge their social roles and expectations aside from a few fringe groups of disenfranchised young men on the internet.

Never go full retard

Men rarely love a girl they're not sexually attracted to, the reverse scenario is much more likely.

If a woman won't allow sexual access then the man won't love her, and know and use this fact. All of infatuation and the pleasant feelings of love start with sexual attraction. If there's no sexual attraction then love won't happen for the man.

Most men benefit from patriarchal social structures so there is no incentive to object to them. Of course the reaction is 'ure just retarded xP'

Maybe try constructive feedback next time

Explain

Hi! That's not true. Women invented abortion.

>a man must embrace his feminimity to become human

Only half-true. Realizing that both the ideas of 'feminine' and 'masculine' are just constructs is the key to getting closer to being the Ubermensch.

>Men rarely love a girl they're not sexually attracted to, the reverse scenario is much more likely.
I think physical attraction plays a part in that, and vice versa. I can't really feel emotional attraction towards a woman that doesn't appeal to me physically, but at the same time I don't really want to sleep with a girl that doesn't click with me emotionally or intellectually.

Granted I'm probably closer to "asexual" than the average guy, I enjoy sex but could go without it (no sex is better than mediocre sex), and value it almost more for reasons of physical intimacy with someone I care about than pure physiological satisfaction. Again, it's not entirely normal, but I am a man so it immediately disproves your assertion that ALL men are as described.

Patriarchy is not designed to benefit men. Its puts the onus on men and benefit the few, bith men and women.

Besides it just means men lead not hold all power. For people who are obsessed with power you only care about formal overt power. You never consider tge other forms of power.

Asesuals arent real

"okay"

This right here.

Masculine and feminine are arbitrary, we don't need them almost anywhere. It's just a meme that is very ingrained in society and will stay so for a long time still.

Not saying that men can't love, just that sexual attraction is much more important factor for them. A lot of women are only marginally attracted to their partner but continue having sex because they understand it's necessary for the relationship due to the man's sex drive, this doesn't really happen the other way around.

It's not designed to specifically benefit men, but it does give them an overall higher status in society and more opportunity to advance themselves while women are denied of this agency. I think that both sides of the gender expectations have their pros and cons but women as a group are objectively more disadvantaged by patriarchal structures then men, I don't think that's deniable.

Still, your response is reasonable and leads to conversation at least. Why did you reply to me with 'Never go full retard'?
I think we can both reach some reasonable conclusions with discussion, no need to be rude.

how about castrated people

It gives us an overall higher status because we take most of the risk and do most of the work. That and bitches love status. That is why we seek it afterall.
Wome. Can be nice healpers but we really dont need them to make society go.

P.s. gender is not a social construct.

>I don't think that's deniable
If it wasn't deniable you wouldn't need to state that you believed it. Many people do *disagree with it, you can't not be aware of that.

The whole reason why there is two different sexes in most animal species is evolutionary hedging between risk-taking and risk aversion.
Too high risk-behavior has potential to wipe out the whole population. Thus the females are cautious, programmed to conserve half of the gene pool even in bad conditions. They also invest more resources in procreation and thus the downsides are bigger - not only may they die themselves bu offspring die without care.
Being too risk-averse means, that population may miss opportunities to thrive. Thus another half of population is programmed to take risks and explore. Most males may die trying that, but only few are needed for procreation.
Thus gender roles have deep evolutional roots, going back at least millions of years. We are not hermaphrodites because dividing roles between two sub-populations was the evolutionary best strategy.

Men do more evil because men do more in general. 99% of criminals, 99% of great scientists, explorers, leaders, etc.

The philosophy of exhaling women can only exist cause they have no track record of anything significant, so you can project some fairytale that they would do better if they were "in-charge." It denies women all agency in all cultures that have ever existed and currently exist, mixed some beta pinning for a dream girl and childish mommy worship.

Of course gender is not a social construct.

Gender roles are.

Not really no

Gunna elaborate on that or are you going to pretend your hot opinions are above the need to defend from skepticism?

>The whole reason why there is two different sexes in most animal species is evolutionary hedging between risk-taking and risk aversion.
this

Women are hedonists and their enemy is boredom, effort, risk, danger.
Fortunately, men are desperate enough to feel relevant, so they are pushy enough to try to be noticed by women (because they fail to be relevant beyond women). and sooner or later, they cracks the bf-shield

Women know that chads and other robots are willing to help them, to have an easy life. The natural problem of women is that they get bored sooner or later with whoever choose to try to entertain them.
So women change their partners to avoid the rut and to create drama. men do not like to be changed, since they loved to be relevant for once in their life, they whine and hate women when women find other providers.
Of course, changing partners constantly becomes a bore too, so they want some fixed men in their life to give them emotional and material support, Rarely sex because women know that, no matter how good the lover is, it gets boring sooner or later.
When they are replaced, men become resentful towards women, since they lose the validation of their existence. They pretend that they can live without women and that they even are better than women, smarter, stronger (in forgetting that women do not need to be so, because men want to be so in place of women)

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.

THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

Knowing that they are not able to stop loving to be supported by men, Women love also to think that they need no man and that they live to help others. This is part of the tactic to enhance their pleasures: women think that they are good people in society, only to feel even more raw, more animal, more of a little minx, typically in private, when they are fucked properly by some beta ready to serve them sexually.

laurelles inkermann

Not him, but most gender roles are based on genetic realities. Men did most of the physically exerting work cause they were stronger. Women were coddled and kept safe cause they were physically weaker and produced the children. Any group of humans that sent the women off to war and work the fields and left the men to do domestic work wasn't going to far.

Okay. Its still a social construct. There is a step from the gender's norm to the society's gender role. There were societies with warrior women that didnt implode, which collapses the idea of a predestined role based on gender.

Civilization doesn't need to answer to genetic realities.

>There were societies with warrior women

As a rare novelty but you've never had a society that used females as a primary source for high-risk physically intensive labor like going to war, and we still haven't seen one.

The point is many social norms were based on reality of our genetic reality.

You miss the point. Even if there was only one warrior woman in all of history, she has broken the gender role. She's either breaking a social construct, which is a feasibility, or breaking a law of nature, which is an infeasibility.

The term "absolute madman" comes to mind

>Even if there was only one warrior woman in all of history, she has broken the gender role.

No one claimed that there were not exceptions. There are women that are 7 feet tall that would beat the shit out of most guys. The point is the average. Most women weren't strong enough to be affective in a primitive fight against men, so they weren't used. Protecting women and there reproductive ability kept a groups sustainable in population, etc etc. Social gender roles were not a sacred unbreaking laws at firsy, they became that with time. But they were based on the reality of gene express and physical capacity.

Not him but I think you misunderstand what a "social construct" is. It's not a dirty word.

For example, money is a social construct. I think everyone knows this, but I don't think most would call money useless or say that money has no reason for existing. All it means is that its ontological existence is other than physical, and it depends directly on society to maintain its reality.

All social constructs are based on reality.

It doesn't change the fact it's a fucking social construct. One that, like others, people do not have to fetter themselves with.

not even being fedora sperg 'MRA', but the average woman is self-absorbed to such an extent that the average man can even really comprehend.

An extreme male narcissist is probably around the same level of selfishness and self-absorption as an ordinary female

I agree with that of course, A fucking social construct based on gene reality and that are only tossed away once technology creates viable alternatives that better serves are gene exprtession. Its still gene expression just expressed through technology. We can have whole armies of female soldiers now with the tech we have. And we better train dem bitches up cause I ain't goin.

Thats probably a bit hyperbolic, but, obdo agree with the sentiment.

Dont act like you never met crazy bitches.

Oh, you successfully set out to prove that cultural gynocentrism, demonization of men, and worship of the divine female already existed in supposedly "patriarchal" times, and that MGTOW philosophy (as always) was right all along?

I've always found MGTOW to be a nonmovement in advocating individualism.

If a man wants to put pussy on the pedestal so be it, isn't that his choice? I get nothing but bitter vibes from these people, much as I like the idea of self ownership.

People just wanna use people. I don't see how this has to be a men from Mars women from Venus kind of thing.

So how do you explain male prisoner-on-prisoner violence?

>Only among men you will find total soulless people,
Anita Sarkresian

>barbarians
Boudica

>and subhumans,
Zoë Quinn

>tyrants,
Dowager Cixi, Indira Gandhi, Cleopatra

>callous executioners,
Irma Grese

>somber religious followers,
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

>revolutionaries who preach murder
Rosa Luxemburg

>and mayhem,
Emma Goldman.

>enemies
Ilse Koch

>murderers who can see humanity perish without shedding a tear.
Elizabeth Báthory

You just switched men and women in every one of these quotes didn't you. Because then the quotes actually make sense.

Why is it always Germans and Anglo-Saxons who think like this.

> people failing on such low tier bait
Everyone knows that gender equality is a true and blatant sexism is just false, OP.