Your thoughts on controllingwomen.com

[experiencedParticipant]

Today I was impolite according to society.
A LAYDEEZ in a benign at first glance delivery, made a malignant phrase – basically it was a “polite” explain yourself comment.
I would have none of it, and ended her attempt at tactical conversation then and there.
Mgtow has untrained me.
No food pellets for you, just electrical jolts – Really? – I welcome them from society because I see them for what they are. Control.

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Varun wrote:

Statistically speaking, we have successfully saved 17000+ women from either getting beaten or murdered. Tell me that is not a good thing.

As one of those 17,000 men, you are implying that I would be a woman beater were it not for MGTOW.

F~~~ you.

I have never beaten a woman in my life. Ever. I have never felt the need to. Not even the ones who were quite literally asking for it. When I tell you some women are into that s~~~, I know what I’m talking about.

And yet here you are, accusing us, including myself, of that s~~~.

What the f~~~ is wrong with you?

Maybe you are a constrained would-be woman beater, but don’t make that assumption of your fellow men.

[Anonymous 54]

Wow theres some theorys goin on here.The son of a violent man hateing mother..I have never been mean or violent towards women.I have no desire to control any one. I believe there is evil in your heart or there isnt.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

sidecar wrote:

Varun wrote:

Statistically speaking, we have successfully saved 17000+ women from either getting beaten or murdered. Tell me that is not a good thing.

As one of those 17,000 men, you are implying that I would be a woman beater were it not for MGTOW.

F~~~ you.

I have never beaten a woman in my life. Ever. I have never felt the need to. Not even the ones who were quite literally asking for it. When I tell you some women are into that s~~~, I know what I’m talking about.

And yet here you are, accusing us, including myself, of that s~~~.

What the f~~~ is wrong with you?

Maybe you are a constrained would-be woman beater, but don’t make that assumption of your fellow men.

I didn’t mean that.

I said that in a general sense. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say 17000+ women who wouldn’t get their feelingz hurt because a man won’t do as she bids in the relationship.

Hey, even if you disagree with a woman, its considered abuse, isn’t it?

“How could you disagree with me? PATRIARCHY!! You hurt my feelings. You mentally abused me.”

Been watching a lot of crime documentaries lately so I apologize how that prme. post came off.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Women find Dark Triad Personality traits very attractive.

Then they wonder why they have problems.

Why they get beaten and abused.

Why their grown children wind up in prison.

“O My God Cant be my fault”.

Thinks the woman

“Cant be her fault either”.

Im Wonderful

Women Are Wonderful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/“Women_are_wonderful”_effect

The pro social guy who would never hurt a fly is the bad guy

And the bad guy is the good guy.

This is the way women rationalize it.

He makes my pussy drip so he must be good.

Or

Hes good because he makes my pussy drip.

Im attracted to him so he must be good.

There is a lot about human and female psycology that is very much worth learning about.

Explains a LOT of things.

Google hybristophelia.

Understand that most things in nature exist in a spectrum ..

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[Binary LogicParticipant 2351]

Anonymous wrote:

Just look at how much women hate MGTOW. All MGTOW is, is men refusing marriage with women. That’s it. And they can’t handle that, because it means women don’t get all those ridiculous benefits of marriage. Meanwhile they scream marriage is oppressive and all men are out to rape them. Yet their biggest beef is with the men that just avoid them completely. Think all of that through and you’ll understand women better.

Pretty much sums it up…

Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

Controlling women fails a cost-benefit analysis. However, from the same cost-benefit analysis, abandoning them for all legal purposes (marriage or business partnership), and for many of the social purposes on offer… passes the cost benefit analysis by such a wide margin that it is the only reasonable option left for a man determined to be in control of his own life. I care little about who controls women. I care very much about who controls me.

I can judge my worth by the length of the line of people seeking to get control over me, and the persistence with which they remain in it despite the fact that it never moves forward. ;-P

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Varun wrote:

I said that in a general sense.

But it’s not true in any sense, general or otherwise.

Nor is your opinion that NOT beating women is somehow “white knighting”.

Nor is your opinion that all men somehow “get off” on being controlling.

Nor is just about every other opinion and assertion you’ve made in this thread.

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say 17000+ women who wouldn’t get their feelingz hurt because a man won’t do as she bids in the relationship.

Women “get their feelings hurt” no matter what men do, either in a relationship or not. They do it intentionally. It’s their way of playing the victim as a form of manipulation. It should be beneath a man’s concern and beneath his contempt.

Hey, even if you disagree with a woman, its considered abuse, isn’t it?

Again, who the f~~~ cares what they “consider a form of abuse”? Faux victims are going to play victim no matter what. It’s what they do. Why the f~~~ should any man pander to that?

Been watching a lot of crime documentaries lately so I apologize how that prme. post came off.

I think it’s time you put down the remote and started watching a little reality.

@keymaster: Why the f~~~ is this thread not in the litterbox already?

[VarunParticipant 2981]

sidecar wrote:

But it’s not true in any sense, general or otherwise.

Nor is your opinion that NOT beating women is somehow “white knighting”.

Nor is your opinion that all men somehow “get off” on being controlling.

Nor is just about every other opinion and assertion you’ve made in this thread.

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say 17000+ women who wouldn’t get their feelingz hurt because a man won’t do as she bids in the relationship.

Women “get their feelings hurt” no matter what men do, either in a relationship or not. They do it intentionally. It’s their way of playing the victim as a form of manipulation. It should be beneath a man’s concern and beneath his contempt.

Hey, even if you disagree with a woman, its considered abuse, isn’t it?

Again, who the f~~~ cares what they “consider a form of abuse”? Faux victims are going to play victim no matter what. It’s what they do. Why the f~~~ should any man pander to that?

Been watching a lot of crime documentaries lately so I apologize how that prme. post came off.

I think it’s time you put down the remote and started watching a little reality.

No, it is.

It might not make any sense to you. But it makes a lot of sense to many people.

I created this thread to see if people shared my views, and quite apparently, they do. If you don’t, then that’s not my problem.

Men do not get off on being controlling… they get off on being dominant… there’s a VAST difference between those two things. Being dominant doesn’t necessarily mean you need tp be controlling.

Not beating women is an act of subtle chivalry, but it’s not white-knighting. Because we’re not sacrificing ourselves to NOT beat women.

You probably got triggered because you thought I was propagating the thought that men are inherently controlling…. I’ve never said that.

What is wrong with you? If you really don’t give a f~~~, you should have just ignored this thread completely.

I’m not saying you would have been a control freak. The reason you are feeling like this might probably be because somebody shamed you with something like this exactly. Whoever that was, you should know that they don’t matter.

Please take a deep breath and relax yourself. You just misunderstood the whole thing.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Anonymous 3]

Varun wrote:

Men do not get off on being controlling… they get off on being dominant… there’s a VAST difference between those two things. Being dominant doesn’t necessarily mean you need tp be controlling.

This is nonsense.

No man anywhere has orgasmed from being “dominant”.

Heterosexual men orgasm from having their penises stimulated. Usually during the process of sexual intercourse.

If your idea of being dominant was correct, then every time a boss yelled at an employee they’d orgasm, or when an athlete scored on another, or when a fighter knocks out an opponent. Those are all very dominant, quite frankly the height of dominance, acts.

Men are sexually attracted to fit young women and “get off” on having sex with them. That’s it.

Any claims to the contrary are utter nonsense, usually promoted to advance an agenda, or unknowingly repeated in advancement of someone else’s agenda.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Varun wrote:

No, it is.

It might not make any sense to you.

Oh get f~~~ed. Go try that “you just don’t understand my superior thinking” bulls~~~ somewhere else.

But it makes a lot of sense to many people.

Those people are wrong. As are you.

All it takes is one example to completely disprove your theory. These forums are full of examples.

Men do not get off on being controlling… they get off on being dominant…

No they don’t. Not all of them. Not even the majority of them. Certainly not the best of them.

What the f~~~ is wrong with you that you assume that?

The standard operating behavior of men is actually cooperation and mutual reliance, not this dominance bulls~~~ you think it is. Monkey men who tried to play dominance games soon got themselves and everyone with them eaten by sabertooths on the communal hunts. This cooperation ethos is how men build things like cities and giant f~~~ing dams and civilizations. It’s women who play the competitive, dominance games, not men, which is why women haven’t built any of the aforementioned cities, dams, or civilizations etc.

Being dominant doesn’t necessarily mean you need tp be controlling.

Now you’re trying to make a semantics argument? Really? And a weak one at that.

You’d better be able to provide examples to back that up. Good luck.

Not beating women is an act of subtle chivalry, but it’s not white-knighting.

Bulls~~~. Pure bulls~~~.

NOT beating women isn’t chivalry. It’s the f~~~ing default state of mankind.

Because we’re not sacrificing ourselves to NOT beat women.

Really? Seriously?

I have never beaten a woman in my life. Ever. Explain what the f~~~ “sacrifices” I have made to NOT beat women. How the f~~~ would I have benefited by beating a woman? What have I lost by not beating any?

You probably got triggered

got triggered

triggered

“Triggered”? Really?

Ah. I get it now. You’re some social justice reactionary still living in their f~~~ed up world view seeing the world in their f~~~ed up terms.

Triggered. Feh.

I’ve never said that.

You f~~~ing insulted every man here as an incipient woman beater, and you don’t understand why I would have a problem with that? Are you completely retarded?

Oh. Wait. Social Justice Reactionary.

What is wrong with you? If you really don’t give a f~~~, you should have just ignored this thread completely.

Oh now you’re trying the old social justice canard of telling me to go away.

Social justice thinkers do this when they don’t have a f~~~ing leg to stand on.

What’s next? Are you going to call me racist too? That’s another common SJW trick.

The reason you are feeling like this might probably be because somebody shamed you with something like this exactly.

You don’t know me boy. Stop assuming you do.

Again, you insult every man here and you don’t understand why you are getting flack for it.

Pushing the button on this one.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

Varun,
In re-reading your post, I realized (I think) that you are trying to understand why women do what they do. You are theorizing that maybe women do what they do because of something all men, or some men have done that feeds their behavior. You see some value in understanding exactly why they do what they do.

(I may be off in the weeds here. feel free to correct me if I am).

I have seen posts like that here before. I think my best response to them has been that I am not all that interested in exactly why women do what they do. My goal is to make very sure that they do not do it to me, or to as many of my brothers as i can prevent. And that goal pretty well absorbs all my focus. I wouldn’t devote any mental resources to trying to understand why they do what they do, because I want those mental resources to stay committed to making sure they do not do it to me/us.

The best illustration of this maybe is that: when I find myself in a mine field, I don’t really spend much time on the chemical formulas and equations of the reactions of the explosives, or the acceleration or the impact velocity of the shrapnel. Now, we all know that mines explode. That’s just what land mines do. The specific how and the why might be worth some time and attention to someone else, but not to me. My focus will need to be tightly concentrated on making sure those mines do not do what mines are intended to do… TO ME.

While navigating this minefield, my focus is on: where is the nearest land mine to me? How do I recognize it before it goes off? How do I avoid it? Or take cover from it? … so that it does not fulfill its intended purpose for me. In the midst of that, a voice in the mine field with me suggesting that I should be focused on the mechanisms of the chemical reactions and the physics of the shrapnel, and further suggesting that what these mines are about to do to me (and have already done to more than one of my brothers) is somehow the fault of, or the result of, something I or my brothers have done… is at best a distraction, and at worst maybe a little insulting to at least some of them (as may have unintentionally occurred here).

I don’t fault you so much for wanting to understand the mechanisms behind what women do. I used to try to sort that out myself as a younger man. But eventually, even if you do figure out why women do what they do, is that knowledge going to help you change what they do? And should that even be your/our goal? I don’t accept blame for what mines do. And I don’t wish to get close enough to them to try to understand why and how they do it. And I certainly don’t wish to get close enough to one to test a theory about why/how they do it.

When presented with a minefield, attention is maybe best spent on figuring out how to avoid or cover from what they do, or help a brother avoid or recover from what they’ve done…rather than trying to figure out the chemistry and the physics of how/why they do it.

If I’ve misunderstood, or mis-spoke here, (which is possible as it is late and I am tired) feel free to ignore.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[Anonymous 42]

BrainPilot wrote:

where is the nearest land mine to me? How do I recognize it before it goes off? How do I avoid it? Or take cover from it?

Mr. Brain Pilot knows his gender war battlefield better than a 4 star General!

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Anonymous wrote:

BrainPilot wrote:

where is the nearest land mine to me? How do I recognize it before it goes off? How do I avoid it? Or take cover from it?

Mr. Brain Pilot knows his gender war battlefield better than a 4 star General!

You know much more than anybody more here might, Mr. Tower. It might have been my mistake, I never had any firsthand experience myself…all I have is textbook education and research studies stating that men are generally the dominant ‘more active’ partner. Maybe whatever I’ve learnt all my life is bulls~~~. Correct me if I’m wrong with proof, and I’ll believe you.

Men do like being dominant. There is hierarchy among men unlike women. Everybody knows that. Most men have that Its not a bad thing. I don’t know why those guys are so ashamed to admit it. You should never be ashamed of being a man and adhering to your nature.

I really don’t know why I’m getting the flack for it. But it sure has motivated me to do further studies and find out the truth.

@sidecar I’m not as smart as you. I don’t even have a degree yet. I’m just starting to understand the world as it is. I may be wrong dude, I accept it. But you just blew your whole image by calling me names. I don’t even know what’s a social justice reactionary. Someone who has a ‘social justice’ reaction to issues? Then I’m guilty. I have a lot of ‘social justice’ reactions. I hate the fact that there are men who actively beat/control women because that’s just wrong. I try to not give a f~~~ but there’s always a funny feeling in my stomach I can’t get rid of whenever I hear about an incident related to it. That’s why I tried to understand it. Believe me, there are LOTS of guys like me who’re having the same issues and searching for answers.

Guys like you discourage discussions like this. I’m never insulting men. Idk why you feel like that. I openly insulted Mr. Tower in one of my prev. posts…and he is a thousand times more badass than you…why isn’t he getting insulted?

In any case, I apologize sincerely for making you miserable. (That’s a social justice reaction now, isn’t it?) And now, this incident here should not be your problem. I’ll make sure I’ll find some research material to support my theory and we can discuss it later.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[GargamelSpectator 29101]

Basic Woman control unit:

In July of 2018, this honey pot forum was sold out to an unidentified NPC sock puppet and troll organization. Most independent thinkers and writers migrated to other MGTOW forums as a result of the never-ending infighting and deliberate trouble starting caused by members who were given "carte blanche" by the admin to do whatever they want. Before my departure, I only left a few thousand cat pics here to comfort and ridicule the feminist owners who now run this place. Their background agenda is to make MGTOW look like a club of losers the public eye. And during the course of 2019, they actually managed to destroy almost all other MGTOW venues as well. Here is the truth about "theindependentman.org" aka "TIM" which was created as an extended workbench to further divide the community. When you register, they install a spyware Zombie cookie on your browser that does all kinds of things the user does not know of: http://www.filedropper.com/essay-on-the-removal-of-malware-cookies-used-by-tim

[GargamelSpectator 29101]

Advanced Woman remote control unit:

In July of 2018, this honey pot forum was sold out to an unidentified NPC sock puppet and troll organization. Most independent thinkers and writers migrated to other MGTOW forums as a result of the never-ending infighting and deliberate trouble starting caused by members who were given "carte blanche" by the admin to do whatever they want. Before my departure, I only left a few thousand cat pics here to comfort and ridicule the feminist owners who now run this place. Their background agenda is to make MGTOW look like a club of losers the public eye. And during the course of 2019, they actually managed to destroy almost all other MGTOW venues as well. Here is the truth about "theindependentman.org" aka "TIM" which was created as an extended workbench to further divide the community. When you register, they install a spyware Zombie cookie on your browser that does all kinds of things the user does not know of: http://www.filedropper.com/essay-on-the-removal-of-malware-cookies-used-by-tim

[Anonymous 3]

Varun wrote:

There is hierarchy among men unlike women.

LOL you think there is no hierarchy among women? Nobody sets up a strict hierarchy the way women do to each other. If anything, men are the ones that can treat each other as equals and have a wide range of friends.

Women will refuse to talk to another woman and boss her around because of social standing all the time. And by that I don’t just mean social class, although that is one, but also popularity or even the clothing someone wears.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Anonymous wrote:

Varun wrote:

There is hierarchy among men unlike women.

LOL you think there is no hierarchy among women? Nobody sets up a strict hierarchy the way women do to each other. If anything, men are the ones that can treat each other as equals and have a wide range of friends.

Women will refuse to talk to another woman and boss her around because of social standing all the time. And by that I don’t just mean social class, although that is one, but also popularity or even the clothing someone wears.

Yes they do. But its not as clear as it is among men.

Men do tend to form coalitions to combat problems more effectively. But they also love practicing hierarchy.

Don’t you yourself love shooting down people for example? Didn’t sidecar over here just lashed onto me like I just committed a federal crime? These are nothing but examples of dominance hierarchy. You’re not doinh anything wrong.

We love putting each other down…and while women do too, they do it subtly.

I’m not denying that women aren’t controlling. They may be more controlling as keymaster has..but I’m not talking about women. I’m talking about men.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Anonymous 3]

Varun wrote:

phoenix wrote:

Varun wrote:

There is hierarchy among men unlike women.

LOL you think there is no hierarchy among women? Nobody sets up a strict hierarchy the way women do to each other. If anything, men are the ones that can treat each other as equals and have a wide range of friends.

Women will refuse to talk to another woman and boss her around because of social standing all the time. And by that I don’t just mean social class, although that is one, but also popularity or even the clothing someone wears.

Yes they do. But its not as clear as it is among men.

Men do tend to form coalitions to combat problems more effectively. But they also love practicing hierarchy.

Don’t you yourself love shooting down people for example? Didn’t sidecar over here just lashed onto me like I just committed a federal crime? These are nothing but examples of dominance hierarchy. You’re not doinh anything wrong.

We love putting each other down…and while women do too, they do it subtly.

I’m not denying that women aren’t controlling. They may be more controlling as keymaster has..but I’m not talking about women. I’m talking about men.

You state incorrect things as facts, and apply them to everyone. When you are corrected you claim that you are a victim and it somehow proves your point.

Sidecar and myself don’t “shoot down people”. We logically confront incorrect arguments and state our opposition.

In fact, we do it to each other. We’ve done it to each other often. We also agree with each other.

It’s not the person, it’s the arguments. There is no hierarchy on here, outside of KM being at the top because he owns the site and puts the work in. The rest of us? We are all just posters, the same as each other.

Your insistence on hierarchy and dominance is utterly ridiculous. You ignore everything people post and just whine that you’re being victimized but somehow that proves you are right. This is some of the worst posting I’ve seen on this site thus far. You should be ashamed and just let it go, but you keep repeating the same things over and over instead.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Varun wrote:

I may be wrong dude, I accept it.

You are wrong. A man would admit it and learn better. Why can’t you?

But you just blew your whole image by calling me names.

The f~~~ do I care about my “image”? I prefer being right.

And as to names? Grow up. Sticks and f~~~ing stones, boy. And that’s the worst I’ve called you: a boy. Because that’s where I hear the same crap you keep repeating from, children.

I don’t even know what’s a social justice reactionary.

Look in the mirror. You may disagree with the SJWs but you still subscribing to their false assumptions and share their world view and illogic. Only people who subscribe to that mindset think “triggered” is a thing or would assume that of others.

I hate the fact that there are men who actively beat/control women because that’s just wrong.

Those men are actually few and far between though, not universal as you keep claiming. It’s a bulls~~~ feminist assumption and is no more true than the feminist claim that “all men are rapists”.

Have you ever actually met any? I mean actual men who actually do beat and control women? I never have. In fact I have only ever heard young, stupid boys who don’t know any better promote the idea.

Despite feminist claims, men don’t need to dominate others to get what they want, and men instinctively know it. A man is capable of getting what he wants himself. It’s women, who depend on the productivity of others, who have to resort to dominance games to get what they want.

The first step in Going Your Own Way is to see through feminist lies like that, not repeat them. And when you repeat that s~~~ here, you insult every man on these forums.

I’m never insulting men.

Varun wrote:

I mean, I know we all get off on the dominance cue,

F~~~ you. No we don’t. The assumption is insulting. How can you not understand that?

Varun wrote:

Statistically speaking, we have successfully saved 17000+ women from either getting beaten or murdered.

F~~~ you. No we haven’t. That statement presumes that all MGTOW would be woman beaters had they not Gone Their Own Way. Which is also f~~~ing insulting.

And completely untrue, because, statistically speaking, MGTOW are likely the LEAST likely men, who are already highly unlikely, to be woman beaters. Woman beaters do not walk away, but MGTOW, by definition, do. MGTOW aren’t woman beaters before they Go Their Own Way. They aren’t woman beaters after the Go Their Own Way. So MGTOW walking away doesn’t reduce the very small number of woman beaters one jot.

Varun wrote:

In any case, I apologize sincerely for making you miserable.

You haven’t made me miserable. You’re just wrong.

And wrong in a way that denigrates men and MGTOW.

And you persist in your folly in the face of repeated correction from myself and other men here.

Your folly is you still subscribe to the same stupid feminist false worldview that’s been spoon fed to you your whole life. That is not necessarily your fault. But persisting in that worldview in the face of reality is your fault.

Here are the facts:

Women are far more likely to engage in domestic violence than men. Women are also far more likely to make false reports of domestic violence against men. Men are far less likely to report acts of domestic violence against themselves.

Women are the beaters, not men. Claiming otherwise is a feminist lie.

It’s women who engage in games of dominance and hierarchy, not men. Men are primarily cooperative, while women are largely competitive. Claiming otherwise is a feminist lie.

That’s the way we evolved. Monkeymen had to learn cooperation and mutual reliance to survive in the face of the extremely hazardous task of hunting. You saved your fellow monkeyman from the sabertooth today because tomorrow it might be you needing to be saved. Meanwhile, back at the safety of the huts (or communal tree) the monkeywomen learned dominance and hierarchy and competed amongst themselves for individual benefits, because there is no danger to them in doing so.

The idea that it’s men who are competitive and females who are cooperative is a feminist false trope based entirely in female projection. It’s simply not true. A few minutes observation of any social grouping of humans or even chimps will show the truth.

Varun wrote:

Men do tend to form coalitions to combat problems more effectively. But they also love practicing hierarchy.

Incorrect. Men don’t form coalitions so much as cooperatives. There’s a difference. Men are masters of division of labor. When faced with a complex problem, men will automatically split into performing different, complementary tasks necessary to achieve the goal. But division of labor is not actually hierarchy. In making a ship the joiner is just as necessary as the sawyer. Just because feminists mistake division of labor for a hierarchy doesn’t make it so. And they mistake it for hierarchy because that’s the way they women think. Women evolved to think of people in hierarchies, men didn’t. This is ultimately the source of hypergamy, and why women do it while men don’t.

Consider the original male hunter / female gatherer paradigm. Hunting is a complex, difficult, dangerous activity requiring multiple different tasks for any chance of success. You need scouts, a point, flankers, chasers, all sorts of different specialists working in concert to run down and capture the prey. Either everyone succeeds or everyone fails. In order for an individual hunter to increase his benefit from hunting, he has to work to ensure everyone benefits more, by capturing more prey together.

Gathering is not nearly as complex a task as hunting, so all gatherers are the same, and each gatherer gathers only for herself. Also, unlike hunting, gathering is a zero sum enterprise. If an individual gatherer wants to increase her gains beyond her own individual ability to gather, she has to do that at the expense of her fellow gatherers by taking what they have gathered. She does this through sharp exchange where necessary and dominance where she can get away with it. It should be obvious how this competition between female gatherers results directly in social hierarchies and a strong natural selective pressure for more competitive females better able to understand and manipulate social hierarchies. Not for nothing are HR departments primarily run by women.

This also explains why female controlled societies, so called matriarchies, are immediately and inevitably out-competed and eliminated by male managed societies, so called patriarchies. It’s not because of testosterone or male dominance or any other such feminist excuses. Basically the women in the female controlled society are all primarily concerned about their own individual gain and individual place in their hierarchy. Meanwhile the men on the other side are all getting down to business.

Are you beginning to see how the entire world view you are trying to base your claims on is a lie based on false feminist assumptions and projections?

[Author]

Posts