Liberal egalitarian and anti‑feminist

Men are still expected to be big earners who provide for their families in a period where wages aren't following inflation, and both partners of a couple have to work to make ends meet.

Men(, like women,) are held to even more unrealistic beauty standards in the wake of celebrity culture, makeup, and photoshop.

We're still expected to not be emotional, but now, we're also paradoxically expected to be emotionally healthy and stable without needing emotional support from partners, family, or friends.

And on top of it, we (along with everyone else, honestly) are expected to be socially hyper-aware and considerate. But we have to tolerate being treated like second-class citizens by the people who expect us to tip-toe around their feelings.

There are two kinds of “women”.

The first kind is the less toxic one (although still disappointing), the childish “woman”. The second kind is the vainglory well, the most toxic one.

Both share the same core nature: both are dependent and passive.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (via anarchyshrugged)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weinstein:

>accused by RICH POWERFUL female celebrities of raping them years ago, with no evidence

Nevermind the fact that he was never actually convicted and the fact that he literally dated one of the supposed rape victims and she had him MEET HIS FAMILY in the span of a few months he was:

>fired from his own company

>charged but not convicted of multiple felonies

>and his wife divorced him

These accusations were so weak and outside the scope of statute of limitation he wasn't even charged. At best what Weinstein did was legal quid pro quo which isn't rape.

If a woman fucks a man for a promotion and approaches a man with such a offer does that make her a rapist? No?

If not then then other way around doesn't make a man a rapist.

But what makes this so stupid about being called a bootlicker is:

1. Harvey weinstein is a fucking hollywood male feminist and a Democrat, two things I hate and disagree with.

2. Trump and Kavanaugh were both accused of similar shit by liberal women with something to gain.

3. Not believing a rich poweful hollywood feminist woman like Asia Argento making rape accusations doesn't make you a bootlicker but believeing a man is innocent does?

I mean Harvey Weinstein is a fucking creep but there are women who rejected his offers like Angelina Jolie and it didn't negatively impact their careers. But these women wanted to use his money and influence for their own career and now that they're post wall and old they want to throw the man under the bus.

But don't let my logical argument get in the way of "da elites", "da gib me dats".

There are more female pedophiles working for the public education system shielded by the teacher unions than there are hollywood rapists or catholic priest rapists yet notice how none of these other people ever talk about that.

A few catholic priest rapists means catholicism is evil and deserves to die and is a cult.

A few hollywood rapists or accused rapists means da elites and gibs.

A nationwide epidemic of female teachers raping male students and NOT EVEN CLASSIFYING IT AS RAPE AND THUS SKEWING THE STATISTICS? Nope, nothing to see here. Carry on.

Gynocentrism is just a incel myth.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9394354/boy-sex-offenders-register-years-naked-pics/

3 teenagers, one boy and 2 girls share nudes:

>boy put on sexual registry for 20 years

>2 girls innocent victims who dindu nuffin

It's ironic. It's tragic how you people claim to be against da elites, feminism, or whatever the fuck else but you all are just cucks. You call me a bootlicker because i don't support the rich powerful elite women like Asian argento over Harvey weinstein as if that makes any fucking sense

Fucking pathetic

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ARud0BAgVUI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrjjoJIVU4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgjvWLycoA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ATbegM9rtOk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnfMPEAzHDI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=901AmU8Y1Lg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MjV7BoRlF3c

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLgTA7MPEyg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMdL_pMj9s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBcVXtt4fWY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1tK2RQO0r8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VY9-3DuRd3Y

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gntM3mLki8M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6G3JOOLad8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=30EoAm_jsRg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ao6srzp7V8E

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ju-Q6KhyY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUWrMJEGqaQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ytiskossZz8

Middle-aged men from disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely to be single as those from rich families, according to a new study that highlights the lack of social mobility in Britain.

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that men’s marriage prospects are linked to their upbringing, and that the disparity between those from well-off and poor families has widened in recent years.

The study found that one in three men from disadvantaged backgrounds were single at the age of 42, compared with one in seven from rich backgrounds.

The IFS said this was the result both of lower marriage rates and a higher likelihood of relationship breakdown among men from low-income families. Men from low-income households were more than twice as likely to be divorced as those from high-income backgrounds – 11% rather than 5% – and almost twice as likely never to have been married (36% rather than 20%).

The thinktank said it had long been established that the sons of richer parents tended to have higher incomes than those with poor parents, but it noted that the gap was widening. In 2012, employed 42-year-old men whose parents were among the richest fifth of households earned an average of 88% more than those from the poorest families. In 2000, the equivalent gap was 47%. The income gap was reduced to 66% after tax.

The IFS said men from disadvantaged backgrounds were also losing out by not being able to attract or keep a partner. Even among men in couples, the partners of men from richer backgrounds earn 73% more than the partners of men from poorer families.

“Female earnings are an increasingly important component of household income and so these trends significantly reduce the household incomes of men who grew up in poor families compared with those of men who grew up in rich families,” the IFS said. “And this is a new phenomenon. Amongst men born 12 years earlier, the differences in partnership status and partner earnings by family background were considerably smaller.”

Men from poorer backgrounds were twice as likely to be out of work as those from richer backgrounds, the study found. Only 7% of men growing up in the richest fifth of households were out of work at the age of 42 in 2012 – a year when the economy was growing only sluggishly – while more than 15% of men from the poorest fifth of households were out of work.

Men from poorer backgrounds are also more than twice as likely to receive disability benefits as those from better-off families, at 11% rather than 4%.

Chris Belfield, a research economist at IFS and an author of the paper, said: “Focusing solely on the earnings of men in work understates the importance of family background in determining living standards.

That said, about the cartoon: picture #1 is about insurance, which is far from a socialist monopoly, picture #2 is about minimal redistribution which is as much a common religious faith, picture #3 is just non‑sens, since one cannot force the economy (and picture #2 make it useless). Then, picture #4 about “people I don’t like would benefit from it” makes me think about a common left wing dogma, which is “people I don’t like should be my slave”.

an opportunist is a person who changes the facts or the meaning of the concepts to their fitting… like you with this post

Taken this: a polygamous “ woman ” has a relationship with a man with high social status. The “ woman ” discover she’s not the favorite, is frustrated and changes past events into “ rape ”. Who is changing the facts? The man or the “ woman ”?

By the way:

“women” and feminism: proud of killing future babies.

Abortion should never be an option, women must be careful who they pick to sleep with, and men should be forced by law to pay support to the children they engender, there are DNA tests to prove their responsibility, that’s why abortion isn’t totally banned, to help men to get away with it, that’s why laws to make them support don’t even exist, men are helped by other men to be pussies and yet they have the nerve to complain about single mothers

“ Women must be careful and men must be forced‑to ”, translates to “ women are less responsible than men ”. How “ women ” could be careful when their responsibility is minored compared to that of men? Also in the context of actual facts, how women could be careful when they are polygamous? (ex. more single men than single “ women ”).

I believe that may be the best documentary about “sex bots” I’ve seen/listened so far, although I’ve just seen/listened very few.

Very interesting points I strongly believe in, are introduced: sex is not the best thing “sex bots” are able too, most of the design work is dedicated to their head, personality, mood and language ability (“women” badly lack the latter, if they don’t get their tribe approval). An engineer says, sex is more a kind of Turing test for “sex bots”, these new life forms being more intended to be social and a compagnon for every day life. On the other side, we can hear from someone else, the typical feminist rhetoric: “men are creating a new life form without consent, to possess it, beat it and rape it”. This self‑claimed “ethic and AI theorist”, which is in fact a feminist, seems to not realize that’s precisely the rhetoric which makes “women” less and less social (if they ever was) and more and more repulsive, to the point their replacement has already begun.

Just take a look at Japan, they are getting lonelier, Is that what the western world needs? I strongly think that this mgtow movement is promoted by the elites, they make us fight, they make us lonely and without children but most importantly, they make us live without hope in the future and constantly afraid of being hurt by the opposite sex, is so contradictory bc mgtows think they're wide awake

MGTOW is not promoted by elites, that’s just that “women” and hence the crowd, started to “care” only when some high social status men too, started to be really fed up with “women”. Except they were not the first ones, even more low social status men too, are fed up with “women”, since longer, but it was just making “women” and hence the crowd, laugh at it.

Is that post from a “ woman ” jealousing some others “ women ”?