Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Women are mean, say the elderly
This topic contains 84 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by 
Varun 3 years, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I guess men are biologically AMALT,
Nope. Sperm is cheap, so it is in the reproductive interests of males to diversify and expand their opportunities as much as possible. The last thing a male wants to do is be indistinguishable from other males. Thus All Men Are Different. Eggs and wombs are expensive, so it is in the reproductive interest of females to conservatively homogenize thereby avoid risks. The last thing a female wants to do is risk her very limited breeding opportunities in maverick behavior. Thus All Women Are Like That.
So I’ll concede that some men here might actually have NAWALT mothers, but we only know they are NAWALT because they have proven it over decades and decades. But the average woman on the street? Not a f~~~ing chance.
The only NAWALT women I know of are fictional and are found in anime and hentai.
Once I see a NAWALT in the real world, I’ll let you know.
Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius
Thus All Men Are Different.
Biologically we are all driven to spread our seed, don’t you have that sex drive desire to impregnate the entire female population? That’s what I mean by AMALT, we all have that natural drive to spread our seed.
The last thing a male wants to do is be indistinguishable from other males.
Because
reproductive interests of males to diversify and expand their opportunities as much as possible
doesn’t that just mean male biological imperative = spread our seed = AMALT.
When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan
Anonymous5Recently I found and purchased a used book now thought to have been by Antoine de La Salle, titled The Fifteen Joys of Marriage. It has been translated from the French into English. It apparently was written 450 years ago, and the setting is France. It sounds like it is extolling marriage, but it is a sarcastic report of marriage in those days
Nice find!
I remember reading about Charles Darwin’s observations of the lives of married men all around him and his profound aversion to ever being married. However the social pressure to marry was very much like it is in Middle Eastern countries and India now, men really haven’t got any real choice.
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was about the same time as Darwin, some of his writings are in the archives here. He paints a very grim picture of subtle torment and endless nagging that men suffered in marriage. Despite the enormous social pressure to conform and marry, he never did.These men lived in times we’ve been led to believe were times of female oppression whereas the reality was just the opposite.
Women have always been cruel masters. The only difference is now they show their true colors before marriage.
There was a time, probably right up to the 50’s when young single women were mostly beyond reproach but even then they inevitably turned into the cruel masters of men’s lives once they had emotional/legal control.Once I see a NAWALT in the real world, I’ll let you know.
The problem is it takes many many many decades to know what you’re seeing really is a NAWALT. And it’s not worth decades and decades of great personal risk finding out.
So in other words, it’s like space aliens or bigfoot. It’s possible they might somehow exist, but you’re never, ever going to meet one. And anyone who says they have is more probably just crazy.
Biologically we are all driven to spread our seed,
Actually that’s not true, especially among men. Otherwise things like monks wouldn’t exist. For that matter the very existence of MGTOW is proof that AMAD.
The reason why it’s more true for men than women is that from the species standpoint men are disposable. A population can afford to lose 90% of its men to experimentation and diversity a lot more than it can afford to lose even 10% of its females.
Because
Because otherwise there’s no reason for females to select him for breeding over any other man. Since sperm is cheap and wombs are expensive males end up in competition while females are effectively interchangeable.
doesn’t that just mean male biological imperative = spread our seed = AMALT.
It’s a matter of methods, not motives, but even the motives among men vary (see above). The difference in methods is what matters. In other words, behaviors. AWALT is based on behavior.
The problem is it takes many many many decades to know what you’re seeing really is a NAWALT. And it’s not worth decades and decades of great personal risk finding out.
Yep. Which is why I don’t believe it when even a lot of members on this website say the women in their family are “AWALT.”
All women, throughout time, have always been “AWALT.” The women in your family is no exception.
Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius
Women are the same today as they were thousands of years ago. The difference is in the past, society kept them in check. Divorce was unacceptable, as was premarital sex. The woman was to obey the man as he was the HEAD of the household (there’s even still a tax classification for this role). She was to do her duty which was to: Cook, clean, take care of any children, and shut up and take his dick when he needed to get off. His responsibilities were to make the money, do most difficult physical labor, and lead the household. It was an adequate arrangement. Women were GRATEFUL for his hard work, and he appreciated his woman.
AWALT is based on behavior.
If that were the case then monkeys in cages and monkeys in the wild are two different breeds.
AWALT is about the true inner nature.
Behavior changes as a consequence of the environment, we all act according to social and legal rules, but our natures remain the same.
Women are Hypergamous, and men are polygamous we strive to secure unlimited access to unlimited sexual opportunity. Monks and MGTOW overcome their biological programming for religious and logical reasons. But we are the exception that proves the rule.
Monks and MGTOW have the exact same inner biological desires, we suppress, overcome and learn to control them but our internal biological drives are the same.
When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Behavior changes as a consequence of the environment, we all act according to social and legal rules, but our natures remain the same.
Even if that’s the case, it’s still a biological fact that women are homogenous in behavious and “natures” while men are heterogenous. Most human traits, such as intelligence, roughly follow bell curves in the population, with a few individuals in the outliers and most somewhere in the middle. However men consistently follow a wider, flatter curve than women with far more individuals at each end.
The fastest evolving chromosome is the Y chromosome, while the X is almost static. Men vary. Women don’t. AMAD. AWALT.
Monks and MGTOW have the exact same inner biological desires, we suppress, overcome and learn to control them but our internal biological drives are the same.
That’s simply not true. For example what about homosexuals? They certainly don’t have the same inner biological drives that I do. Or what about asexual men? I know plenty of each, but am nothing like either.
Monks and MGTOW have the exact same inner biological desires, we suppress, overcome and learn to control them but our internal biological drives are the same.
That’s simply not true. For example what about homosexuals? They certainly don’t have the same inner biological drives that I do. Or what about asexual men? I know plenty of each, but am nothing like either.
[/quote]
… hence ‘Biological’. Biology can be modified if the modification is in the favour of the survival of the species. But I still don’t know why homosexuality came into existence because I don’t think it favours ‘species survival’ in any way. same goes for the NAWALT/AWALT argument… NAWALT if a woman’s existence (or acceptance into society) is threatened; AWALT if not. Old people were more NAWALT because people were closer to each other in a community before than now.Agreeing with Mr. AFT, we do have the same biological drives, but different social constraints. For eg., if you go out and see a good woman, you’d probably hit her up (just providing an example and don’t mean to be disrespectful in any way) because of your social upbringing that gives you more freedom; but if I was in a similar situation, I would not make a move. I woud constantly think about, “What’s gonna be the social implications of my behaviour?” because I was told from day 1 to “respect women”. It has been hardcoded into my brain to a level that I can’t erase it, not anytime soon. That’s why I’m contradicting myself whenever I see a woman… my social upbringing contradicts my biological impulses. One says “Go make a move on her” the other one says “If you do that, objectifying women and being inhuman, you’ll end up in hell”.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Yet, you said ALL women are whores in another thread. Make up your damn mind.
Just curious, could you link me to that thread?
When other MGTOWs say “AWALT” and don’t apply it to the women in their family, they haven’t learned anything from this website.
But most of the women in my family embody many of the qualities that guys on here complain about. I’m not denying that. I’m also claiming I know older women who aren’t related who are unicorns. I’ve claimed it in other in the past as well…I know unicorns…they’re just all 75+.
Its funny I talked about a woman who for more than half of her marriage her husband was diagnosed with a degenerative disease and she stood by him and literally wipe his ass for years…yet…AWALT. Why didn’t she ditch his sorry ass and marry up rather than take care of gimpy from her 40s into her 60s. He wasn’t working most of the time, she was the primary breadwinner and the caregiver…he was a burden to her yet she kept her wedding vows and stood by him in sickness. That woman wasn’t my grandmother, but there isn’t a doubt in my mind she is a unicorn, and shockingly enough she was also raised in an era that predated feminism and no fault divorce.
I’d maybe have more sympathy for you if you didn’t just turn around and disrespect my core beliefs, showing you don’t respect me as a man enough to show me a modicum of civility.
Here’s some more for ya! EPHESIANS 5:5: “For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” According to your core beliefs practically everyone on this website is going to hell. Interesting how you never post things like that because they don’t fit your narrative, even though it comes from the very same religion you babble on about…or what are you saying…you are a religious fellow but only the little bits of said religion you chose to believe in and the rest is wrong?
Maybe you shouldn’t be preaching on here with your religious quotes if you are so easily offended by people who don’t share the same belief system. The great flying spaghetti monster could kick your invisible friends ass any day of the week.
So I’ll concede that some men here might actually have NAWALT mothers, but we only know they are NAWALT because they have proven it over decades and decades. But the average woman on the street? Not a f~~~ing chance.
Exactly. That’s all I’m saying. I know some older women that if I could go back in time and marry them before their husband got to them I would in a heartbeat…but I’m only saying this because because I’m looking at the end results of a long successful marriage, and I’m looking at women that have proven they can be as faithful as you’d ever want a wife to be.
I know young women today are raised very, very differently from these women that predated feminism. Would I roll the dice on a woman my age? Hell no! And to be fair about it pretty much everyone of those older unicorns I know probably wouldn’t be nearly the woman they are if they were born in the 80s or 90s.
Its a little ridiculous coming up with a list of s~~~ty qualities for women, and saying AWALT, then when someone points out they know some older women who definitely don’t fit the description and haven’t for the last 80 years…no, you are wrong, she is like that! Why? Because she had some bad thoughts? Well then that makes all of us rapists and murderers because I’m sure we all fantasized about sex with a woman who wasn’t interested or daydreamed about wrecking someone we didn’t like. The logic some guys are using in this thread is the very same feminist logic they bitch about.
Not cool buddy.The Man loves his Grandmother.I loved my Grandmother.She was different then thses bithes today, Men are different to. Thell insult your f~~~ing Grandnother.
[/quote]
They were not
Old people know s~~~. The boomers just f~~~ed us over something serious.
And they spend all their time blaming millennials for everything because it’s not how it was “back in their day”.
The Children of Doom... Doom's Children. They told my lord the way to the Mountain of Power. They told him to throw down his sword and return to the Earth... Ha! Time enough for the Earth in the grave.Just curious, could you link me to that thread?
I can’t link it because I can’t find it. I’m sure I had it yesterday, but if I was wrong about what you said, my bad. If I find the link, I’ll post it in here.
When people don’t have avatars, it’s sometimes easy to get things mixed up with the other members who have no avatar as well.
That woman wasn’t my grandmother, but there isn’t a doubt in my mind she is a unicorn, and shockingly enough she was also raised in an era that predated feminism and no fault divorce.
That’s the problem though. It’s only in YOUR MIND. That person who was taking care of her husband, she probably benefited in it someway or another. It could’ve been for a variety of reasons.
Just because it’s a woman you’re fond of doesn’t make it an exception. For an experiment, ask all the NAWALTs you know about false rape/domestic accusations and see what they say.
I bet they’ll end up siding with the accusers who made those false accusations.
Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius
hence ‘Biological’. Biology can be modified if the modification is in the favour of the survival of the species.
But natural selection operates at the individual level, not the species level. Change or stability in species is just a consequences of selection of individuals, not a cause for it.
But I still don’t know why homosexuality came into existence because I don’t think it favours ‘species survival’ in any way.
See above.
Homosexuality comes into being as an experiment in a very complex genome. One that generally fails reproductively at the individual level, for obvious reasons, but when it happens in males it has minimal consequences for the species because, thanks to cheap disposable sperm, the other men can easily take up the slack.
The fact remains that homosexuality exists, and so clearly shows that all men definitely do NOT have the same biological drives or “inner natures” (whatever the f~~~ that’s supposed to mean). The fact that homosexuality exists even in societies where it is aggressively culled shows that it has f~~~ all to do with “social constraints”.
Speaking of homosexuality, that’s another place where men show much greater and more extreme diversity than women. Men tend to fall into either being heterosexual or homosexual, with very little bisexual overlap. AMAD. Women, on the other hand, show a much larger bisexual population, with relatively few individuals purely heterosexual or purely homosexual. AWALT.
For eg., if you go out and see a good woman, you’d probably hit her up
You can’t just “go out and see a good woman”. It takes many many years of careful observation to determine if she’s good. Most aren’t. And even after years you can never be too sure.
But even if you mean “attractive woman” instead of good, you’re still barking up the wrong tree, because different individual men have an incredibly wide range of what they consider attractive. Some men are into Asians. Some are into black women (f~~~ knows why). Some gentlemen prefer blonds. Others like nerdy girls with glasses. Then there are the chubby chasers and on and on and on.
AMAD.
Now compare that to what women consider attractive. Five minutes perusing their personal ads will tell you they all want the exact same things. I think you can list their demands off the top of your head.
AWALT.
but if I was in a similar situation, I would not make a move. I woud constantly think about, “What’s gonna be the social implications of my behaviour?”
And a homosexual man wouldn’t think about her at all, because he has completely different biological drives than you do.
AMAD.
I can’t link it because I can’t find it. I’m sure I had it yesterday, but if I was wrong about what you said, my bad. If I find the link, I’ll post it in here.
When people don’t have avatars, it’s sometimes easy to get things mixed up with the other members who have no avatar as well.
That’s pretty low pulling quotes out of your ass trying to make someone look like an asshole.
That’s the problem though. It’s only in YOUR MIND. That person who was taking care of her husband, she probably benefited in it someway or another. It could’ve been for a variety of reasons.
Just because it’s a woman you’re fond of doesn’t make it an exception. For an experiment, ask all the NAWALTs you know about false rape/domestic accusations and see what they say.
I bet they’ll end up siding with the accusers who made those false accusations.
No…its not in my mind. These women also tend to trash on younger women as well, and even for being old women now its still obvious through conversations I’ve had with them they realize a woman who represents your traditional sense of feminine is far superior than one who represents feminists. I know I’ve mentioned multiple times around the forums about my grandmother being “red pill” if you want to go topic surfing trying to find old quotes to throw in my face good look for one of those.
I’m not going to deny these women probably benefited in some way from their husbands, but what made them unicorns is they also contributed back to their marriage and if you ask their husbands they’d say they benefited as much, if not more than the women. I know my grandfather often said my grandmother worked harder than him because she was raising 4 kids at once without many of the modern technologies that make housework convenient that we take for granted today…he never felt shafted she was home doing laundry while he went to work when she was doing it by hand back then, he always came home to a warm home cooked meal, and she actually respected him. Considering an average income back then was sufficient to support 5 dependents, buy a house, and still retire early if you were smart with it, the fact she wasn’t clocking 40 hours a week somewhere and sending the kids off to daycare which probably would have cost more than her paycheck anyhow wasn’t a huge burden on him…he’d rather have just had her home and he retired no long after the last kid was out of the house. I know another old guy who is a farmer and his wife a retired state worker with a fat pension that contributed way more financially to their family over the years while still being the primary caretaker o the kids. I know a woman who took care of an ill husband with a degenerative disease for decades while she was also the primary breadwinner and caretaker of him and the kids. The point is a good wife used to be more of an asset where as today with the way society has changed and the beliefs of most women have adapted, for a good man, the most he could hope for from a wife is that she isn’t too much of a burden.
That’s pretty low pulling quotes out of your ass trying to make someone look like an asshole.
And that’s my bad. I got you and another member mixed up because you both have no avatars. @hellraider said that in this thread.
But you’re the last person to talk about “what’s low.” You attacked other members on here just for saying AWALT when you’re claiming the women you’re fond of is a NAWALT unicorn. that’s pretty low.
So you can keep your so called NAWALT unicorns. But if you’re going to talk about them on this forum, I’m going to say AWALT every f~~~ing time.
Men age like fine wine. Women age like milk. "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." -Confucius
Let me clearly state: I am only talking about the natural CARNAL SEX DRIVE, not any other aspects of biology.
Sorry to burst any bubbles, only about 1% to 3% of the population are gay, statistically they are insignificant. Insignificant minority populations don’t “disprove” generally observable facts.
If anyone doesn’t know what I mean by the male imperative or intrinsic male nature look up evolutionary psychology. Or just open your eyes and observe what is going on in society. Men chase women, men do all manner of things for pussy, men still get f~~~ed over by the marriage trap despite the mountain of evidence warning against marriage. In fact MGTOW is a consequence, it’s basically individual men sick of being taken advantage of, (advantage of their sex drive).
I propose that the blue pill, is based upon exploiting the male imperative, that is men’s basic instinct to f~~~ and procreate with women. Gays have the same carnal desires, primal biological urges, it’s just that their tastes are different, monks and celibates either fight and overcome those desires, or are exceptions that have extremely low T count.
Now if anyone can stand up and tell me that the “VAST MAJORITY” of men are either celibate monks or gay and have no interest in chasing women for the purposes of mating, then I’d welcome your EVIDENCE. But to state that a statistically insignificant 1% to 3% of the population “PROVES” anything is weak.
HUNGER is a biological drive, whether you eat filet min jong, or two minute noodles is a matter of taste.
And a homosexual man wouldn’t think about her at all, because he has completely different biological drives than you do.
The biological drive it to F~~~, who or what you f~~~ is merely a matter of TASTE.
When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan
Anonymous3Let me clearly state: I am only talking about the natural CARNAL SEX DRIVE, not any other aspects of biology.
If anyone doesn’t know what I mean by the male imperative or intrinsic male nature look up evolutionary psychology. Or just open your eyes and observe what is going on in society. Men chase women, men do all manner of things for pussy, men still get f~~~ed over by the marriage trap despite the mountain of evidence warning against marriage. In fact MGTOW is a consequence, it’s basically individual men sick of being taken advantage of, (advantage of their sex drive).
I propose that the blue pill, is based upon exploiting the male imperative, that is men’s basic instinct to f~~~ and procreate with women. Gays have the same carnal desires, primal biological urges, it’s just that their tastes are different, monks and celibates either fight and overcome those desires, or are exceptions that have extremely low T count.
Problem is your theories are historically inaccurate.
In cultures without law enforcement and without large government, the opposite seems to occur. Instead of men chasing women, women’s fathers have to pay a dowry just to get a woman married off. Women are all expected to be thin, chaste and marry young, and then stay loyal.
Any man that chases women the way you’ve described is considered effeminate and is mocked.
And that’s all ignoring the fact that a man’s sex drive completely collapses with age. One of the major reasons women kept seeking marriage at a young age in the past is because they knew once either they or the men aged out it was all but impossible to get a man to marry. In fact even now with Western statistics, the chances of marriage for a man over 34 who has never married is very low. Even women admit to this.
Modern Western men are just thirsty as f~~~, most of that is from cultural programming, but I suspect some of that is also from chemicals placed in food most Westerners eat. If you get out of the big liberal cities, and head out to more rural areas where they’re probably eating cleaner food, the men tend to be more masculine and have less issues there as well.
You’re a young guy that lives in a major city and it’s pretty easy to see. 20-25, maybe a little past that. You’re falling for the pussy beggar and feminist programming, when as a man you could be so much more and value yourself so much more. It’s up to you whether you want to do that or if you’d rather just buy into the emasculation you’ve proposed as your theory.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
