>>22354

Indeed.

Women hate women, too. are we wrong for agreeing?

>If anything, the kids are lapsing into a godless breed of cybernetic tribalism
This. I blame the shift on the opposite approach to identity that the internet took for millenials vs gen z

the true redpill is realizing that men are just as bad: logical thinking doesn't really exist and the vast majority do nothing at all

Then why do women take a womans side agaonst a man literally every time

>golden mean fallacy

However bad men are, at least there have been Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Einstein, Beethoven, etc.

t. elliot

We don't.

Shoo shoo MGTOW.

Veeky Forums can hardly be considered the norm. The entire site and the board subcultures may often be contradictory, but ignoring you're collecting data for analysis, you don't come here for an accurate representation of common public thought. Except for the Trump stuff on pol I guess.

>golden mean fallacy
nah

the population percentage of those types of men is so negligible they barely exist. they're freak accidents. there is maybe one male posting on this website right now that qualifies

there were also historical differences in opportunity that can't be denied

this site is considered polarizing

It's awful I hate it

At least you can get multiple orgasms.

Humans are humans, right? My middle brother once told me when I was a wee lad that women crave sex more than men, it's just that they're better at hiding/controlling themselves than men. It takes a strong man to turn down sex, but most women will open up to a strong man.

tl;dr huge slut

I was really hoping this would get turned into a trap thread with feminine penis jokes. guess not.

I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

A life filled of mediocrity and insecurity

I'm not a misogynist, but it's true

"Amongst the half-human progenitors of man, and amongst savages, there have been struggles between the males during many generations for the possession of the females. But mere bodily strength and size would do little for victory, unless associated with courage, perseverance, and determined energy. With social animals, the young males have to pass through many a contest before they win a female, and the older males have to retain their females by renewed battles. They have, also, in the case of mankind, to defend their females, as well as their young, from enemies of all kinds, and to hunt for their joint subsistence. But to avoid enemies or to attack them with success, to capture wild animals, and to fashion weapons, requires the aid of the higher mental faculties, namely, observation, reason, invention, or imagination. These various faculties will thus have been continually put to the test and selected during manhood; they will, moreover, have been strengthened by use during this same period of life. Consequently in accordance with the principle often alluded to, we might expect that they would at least tend to be transmitted chiefly to the male offspring at the corresponding period of manhood. ...

These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,--that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty (25. Maudsley, 'Mind and Body,' p. 31.), and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities.

Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."
- Charles Darwin

I hate to break it to you, but it's easier to get off with a vibrator to the clit than having a dick shoved in you.

It depends greatly if you're attractive or ugly.

Eh, stimuli for women is around 85% psychological
Vibrator or dildo-orgasms never compared to getting railed by a guy they really like

Being a woman with a man's mind would probably be awful, though

By nutting the fuck up and not being a whiny bitch about what other people do.
Improve yourself. Work on your own damn life.
The longer you spend complaining about what other people are doing the less time you're using to do shit that matters.

Some white chick wants to wear a sari? Fuckin let her. It's her life.
You do you, and let her do her.
What you think is right and wrong has zero bearing on what other people can or can not do.
Have pride in your culture, care about where you came from. No one's stopping you.

But stopping others from doing so with foreign ideas and concepts makes you a whiny piss baby who I genuinely think this world be a better place without.

> people thinking dumb shit about your culture
> thinking dumb shit

> centuries of cultural genocide, theft of ancient knowledge and deliberate and mechanical manipulation of history to paint white people as superior

you guys deep down know what youre doing anyway, explaining is pointless.

>tfw my dream is to be a strong as shit and thicc mode girl
being both pretty and intimidating would be the best of both worlds

>pic related
and what percentage of people who contributed to that produced something notable?

largely a product of menial labor, designed by small groups of people who mostly iterated on previous work (most buildings were not pioneering), brought to life by a few large political personalities

cool emotional tirade. where is the logic? i was expecting some sort of objective reason as to why this is not worthy of discussion

Thanks for the factoid.

Women can't even cum without the aid of electromechanical technology invented solely by white men. Remember to check your privilege.

Right, cause the white people alive today really did that to your culture.
What a salty cuck, hating bumblefucks from the 1400s cause they decided to plunder folk you don't even fucking know.

>cultural genocide
Hey, if you wanna go back to the fucking plains be my guest. Be sure to stop using the device you're posting on, indoor heating/cooling, or the clothes off your back. Hey, if ALL white people are to blame, then I can say ALL of your people are mooching off of us/
>Theft of ancient knowledge
Right. What knowledge exactly? If you're talking about Arab medicine and writings, maybe, but that was back in the fucking crusades. You're really still salty about that?
White people didn't even stop scientific prosperity in the Arab world anyway, it was other fucking arabs.
>Painting white people as superior.
Well, now I realise you're just a fucking idiot. You're as bad as the people on /pol/ who think (((Soros))) is a thing and that white genocide is something to be afraid of. White people aren't being painted as superior in any context in the developed world. Wanna see race supermacy? Try living in Saudi, India, or Pakistan.

>largely a product of menial labor, designed by small groups of people who mostly iterated on previous work (most buildings were not pioneering), brought to life by a few large political personalities
I'm curious, to which animal standard are homo sapiens being held?
Being that angry about being a woman.

read the thread

My uncle is basically Veeky Forums
Married a woman the same age as his mother because he didn't want kids. His wife is basically an extremely british /pol/

>I'm curious, to which animal standard are homo sapiens being held?

Ants maybe. I dunno, the females ITT are doing a terrible job of not looking like they run solely on emotion.

>not hooking up with anyone named rich on the off-chance they're the piano man

jess is never gonna make it

lmfao this bitch is so mad about being a woman

>objective reasoning
oh lawd

>cultural genocide
what. genocide is specifically to wipe out a people. What is "cultural genocide"? If it isn't anything more than subsuming another group into your culture I have to conclude you're just reframing it as "genocide" because it's a scary word that's bad.

>theft of ancient knowledge
Let me guess, you used to move huge stones with your mind powers? How do you even "steal knowledge"?

>deliberate and mechanical manipulation of history
history itself is the manipulation of facts about the past into a narrative. How is what whites do any different than what any culture does, paint the facts to make themselves look like the good guys/superior?

>you guys
>what youre doing
Who is "you"? Also I bet it's easier to demonize your "enemy" when you convince yourself all of them are 100% aware of what you think they're doing and support it.

>a godless breed of cybernetic tribalism

That sounds fucking rad though.

If they're so unimpressive and relatively simple to build, why haven't women built half of them?

Admit it Veeky Forums, you'd all be camwhores.