"Women have to find different ways of being safe, and one of those ways is finding a man to protect them."
A Glock will do just fine thanks.
Wow. What in the fuck is wrong with these people? Seriously. Is there something in the DSM that describes the things this guy suffers from?
Summa Assholeus
Basically all human embryos start off as an asshole and require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them normal. They simply didn't receive that.
(Lol, only the first part of that is true)
Basically we all start out as assholes, but most of us outgrow it. Some people don't, though.
Lead
Being pretty stupid is enough. You don't need to pathologize every single condition, this person is just well below average intelligence.
Please try to remember that if you think of the most middle-of-the road average guy you can try to imagine, not really smart, just right in the middle average, 50％ of everyone is less intelligent than that guy.
What he's saying isn't wrong per se, it's just the thoughts smart kids have at age 12 or so and then think way further beyond
Men are stronger. Men are mean. They're more aggressive. They will take them over. They'll do it anytime they can, anywhere they can. They will abuse them. They will hurt them.
I’m surprised a man would admit that he’s like this.
Conservatives: Men are aggressive and will hurt women.
Also Conservatives: Why would women choose the bear?
Are you really? I'm not. He sounds like all the other weirdos who say the same thing. He's old and quite weird.
Problematic men will literally admit they're mean and aggressive then follow it up with victim blaming
why surprised? republican men think they're (somehow) all alpha males, somewhere on the spectrum between conan the barbarian and john wick, and it's not they who have problems, but literally all the women who avoid them like the plague
They used to be more careful about admitting who they are. Trump broke their brains and they're all trying to one up each other when it comes to shitty opinions and dumbass hot takes. It's better when they're honest though, at least you know which ones to avoid. Which is basically all Republicans.
The next time some dude bitches about women picking the bear, I'm linking this.
This is like a child's understanding of the world. Someone who has little exposure to actual people and who is unable to conceive of a more sophisticated model of the universe.
There's a grain of truth in there, under all the weird stuff about women and monogamy.
We did intentionally spread power and resources because it was better for everyone. Turns out kings don't like getting beheaded.
You're right, he would be fairly on point if he was just talking about resources and not people too.
Besides the obvious issue of treating people like things, he also thinks the government is lying to us to... get our women? Who in the government is getting the women? Also if the lie is women don't need men, then how will these supposed liar feds sway the women to them after they abandon their existing men?
And he presupposes that the only way to "acquire" women is to either convince them their man sucks, or that they don't need a man. Why not just find an unattached woman? And/or become a more desirable man?
This is a guy who needs someone to blame when things don't go his way.
What the everloving fuck is going on? Why is society regressing so far with all of these bullshit views?
It's not regressing. These dipshits have always been around. What's changed is you. You've advanced. You're on the mountaintop looking down and wondering why these people suddenly look so small.
Maybe, but even ten years ago, people would have hesitated to say this kind of thing publicly. Or am I wrong in thinking that? It's not that I think it didn't happen, but it seems to me that it happens with much greater frequency now.
is "women just have a way of shutting all that down" 10yrs old yet?
I mean I feel like that was massive news because of how insane it was compared to how relatively little these other things get
people would have hesitated to say this kind of thing publicly
Guys like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson have been saying this shit since the early 1980s. And before that you had your Charles Murrays and George Wallaces and your Father Coughlains and your Henry Fords. Hell, Ford's "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" came included with every vehicle sold straight through the 1930s.
People thought crazier shit than this, even. And believed it. Myths about Atlantis and Hybernia, complete with occluded races of super-sentient psychics and lizard people were published and commented on at face value. Pick up a copy of "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base". The first few chapters take a deep dive into how Orwell's "War of the Worlds" inadvertently set a standard for weaponizing urban mythology to shape public opinion and invoke mass panic.
It’s not that I think it didn’t happen, but it seems to me that it happens with much greater frequency now.
More dumb-asses have bigger megaphones. But I think the sheer breath and depth of this kind of pseudo-science has exposed it as threadbare. This isn't the first time either of us have heard these dated and debunked theories of gender hierarchy, I bet. But we also get to see what kind of company the ideas keep. And we get to see the people who profess them behave like the kind of senseless beasts they accuse everyone else of being.
I propose a new social convention where anyone who starts talking about people of any kind in terms of being breeding stock is declared free game to be immediately socked in the gonads by any and all listeners present.
Under this subheading are topics Up to and including :
Racist narratives about racial replacement or "breeding groups out of existence"
Facist and Misogynistic theory about the redistribution of resources ie : women
Transphobic conspiracies about how they are really trying to sterilize swacks of the population through hysterectomies
Homophobic narratives about how same sex relationships are not "fruitful" and thus worthless
Idiot relatives who are so desperate to get you to mash your genitals with someone else's so they can babysit as a hobby that they will drive you to murder if not stopped.
"women cannot take care of themselves" ~ guy who probably couldn't boil water, or do his own laundry, needs mom to survive.
I had a job once with a coworker who had to go home everyday to make her fully able husband lunch or he wouldn't eat. She didn't like doing it and often apologized because it made her late. How the does acting like this give these guys an impression of 'strength'?
That's why the women have to be evenly distributed
Doesn't the weirdo mean "guerilla code."
These traitorous incel #maga clowns are weird.
Doesn’t the weirdo mean “guerilla code.”
I think he's literally referring to Silverback Apes.
(sigh)
/s
Another weirdo
Wow, I figured the notion that Harris having a good shot at the presidency would drive the MAGAs totally insane was silly. And yet, here we are! The conservatives do seem to well and truly be losing their shit about it.
Womens rights does not mean the right to own women as a "customer", Andrew Klavan
These guys can never fathom that it's possible for a woman to fuck multiple men. It's like they think monogamy is a law of the universe like the speed of light.
They also seem to think dominating others and leadership are the same thing.
Tell me you don't know what the Magna Carta is without saying you don't know what the Magna Carta is.
Sitting here like, man I know I didn't pay a WHOLE lot of attention in history but his version is not the lesson I gleaned from the story...
the magna carta protected the rights of some barons, not the common people, so he's actually correct
Magna Carta was the first document to establish that the monarch was not above the law, and established law as a power itself.
When people talk about "the rule of law," that's what they're talking about.
yeah, but it still specifically protected barons, not the common person
when he says this:
That's how you get Magna Carta where the aristocrats, the most powerful people, go to the king and say, we want power too
he's correct
You can’t read, can you?
That's how you get Magna Carta where the aristocrats, the most powerful people, go to the king and say, we want power too.
Tell me you don't know what the Magna Carta is without saying you don't know what the Magna Carta is.
he's literally correct about what the magna carta is
Okay, so reading the whole thing and trying to figure out what he's really trying to say through all that rambling.
First he's talking about how monogamy and polyamory are 2 different systems for reproduction, which, yeah technically true. I think he means the "one woman per man" in a sense of, that's how monogamy is structured, not literally "we are going to make the government gather the women and distribute the women evenly", though I still don't know what fucking point the weirdo's trying to make.
Then he talks about "strong" men trying to get the women back. At this point I (naively) considered the possibility that he was actually going to make a critique about the "alpha male" bs, since that's how they commonly think.
But then he starts talking about how they do that is by telling the women they can be self-sufficient??? And that what women really need is a man to protect them?? Even if we did go with the simplistic reasoning he was basing this off of, that might makes right, the strong men could clearly just beat the shit out of the weak men and take their women. What fucking nonsense are you smoking to think that the strongest guy in the room would need to play those mind games??
My guy has clearly never genuinely looked at the relationship between an abuser and his victim, or looked at the fucking Taliban that operates on this same shitty logic and see how very much worse off those women are.
So in conclusion, while he seemed to start off saying that monogamy > polyamory purly as a genetic device, monogamy is actually bad because then the "strong men" with try to steal the women by checks notes empowering them??
Fuckin weirdo.
Not only is this far from accurate from a scientific viewpoint, it's also a hopelessly reductive and cynical take on humanity. It's depressing that this sad old fuck has seemingly learnt next to nothing in his 70 years.
These manosphere motherfuckers are so funny to anyone who got past bio101 because they're all stuck in a world where evolution is poorly understood and genetics don't exist.
I imagine these guys dressed as 18^th^ century dandies because why should their clothes be any more modern than their science? (Jordan Peterson organically dresses this way)
These manosphere motherfuckers are so funny to anyone who got past bio101 because they’re all stuck in a world where evolution is poorly understood and genetics don’t exist.
They're not self aware enough to understand the pass they get because of their gender and race. We need some evolutionary pressure on them, a little hardship would separate out those who can evolve from those destined to be thrown on the scrapheap.
The premise is suspect.
First, there are lots of (mostly) monogamous animals ('cheating' in monogamous pair bonds gets a fair amount of study).
Second, which gorillas? Are you talking about the ones that form alliances with several males and maintain friendly relationships, groom one another, and fight together against common enemies?
Third, monogamy (even with cheating) seems to have an advantage for species where females forage on their own rather than in groups/herds. There's more to it, though.
This is from a pre-print study, so should be viewed with some suspicion, but it at least describes the current state of investigations:
Since phylogenetic inertia is not a realistic explanation given that four very distantly related lineages are monogamous, the implication is that monogamy has alternative fitness advantages for males. These benefits must also be advantageous for the female, otherwise she would be not willing to tolerate the male’s continued presence – and, perhaps more importantly, would not be willing to undergo the evolution of the expensive cognitive and behavioural traits associated with pairbonding (Dunbar & Shultz 2021).
the fact that primates, in particular, have a long period of offspring dependency suggests that the problem is more likely to be associated with offspring survival.
For human-specific stuff, here's a piece on promiscuity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210680/
And one on the ideology of female 'honor' and predictors of who will feel what and how strongly : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563489/
Nosferatu went on to complain that women have too much blood and that he wants it
The hell is wrong with these people. That's one of the more disgusting objectifications of women I've read from current times, and it's littered with ridiculous inaccuracies from beginning to end. Just to point out one, we're much more related to chimpanzees and bonobos than gorillas, so if you're going to assume that genetic similarity determines behavior (which is already an unfounded assumption), you should at least refer to them.
Social Darwinism is the study and implementation of various pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that purport to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics. Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase, while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Social Darwinist definitions of the strong and the weak vary, and differ on the precise mechanisms that reward strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support eugenics, racism, imperialism and/or fascism.
I'm glad this guy has figured out the best way to distribute women.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News