Their behaviour patterns are more like hetero-sexual men then other women and they see men as competition for women and of course are against heterosexuality

https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2017/02/23/58af128ce2704eca2b8b45ad.html

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/610207958000861205/646119001600032770/clip_image001.png

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917305998

People who think they are nonconforming are unintentionally conforming to the opposite set of gender traits.

https://youtu.be/P4NobOSDN8I?t=1272

The fact that lesbians act almost the same as men on average throws the biggest hole in feminist theory

kekekekekekeke

That is statistically wrong though.

Yeah it should be under the fathers control. Have you seen the single motherhood statistics?

So basically what you're saying, Black Knight, is, rape lesbians.

They see children as belonging to women only

https://youtu.be/rb0SRDOnqWA

A balance of power is required to protect those without power (in this case the child in the family). Thus man must have at least equal power to woman so he can protect the child in a case of the mother doing/threatening harm to the child, or neglecting it.

We have understood that this is neccessary in a case where the man is the threat, but we have neglected to understand that the reverse must be done as well.

Plus it's not really talked about in what proportion do women compared to men START the fight, initiate the process by usually hurling verbal abuse, nagging for things and 'bitching'.

Things that women tend to utilise much more frequently compared to men.

And while we are looking at it, let's take a brief stop at favoritism when employing female teachers, minders, caretakers resulting in boys not really being exposed to the male role model side of things throughout much of their childhood

.

Women can only 'police' other women.

We can clearly see how women trying to police men is detrimental to the mental/economical sanity of the West.

.

I tend to think, women got the vote and progressively more access to higher, leading roles majorly for the state to be able to GROW and to be able to better GRIP the means of control within society.

Women progressively got turned into the pawns of governments that now also had control over reproduction through their new allies.

.

Allies by the 'virtue' of resource dependence, a role that had been always carried by men naturally for the exchange of having babies with them .

In essence, statism made women resent men and engineered them to be addicts of state institutions.

.

What does it take to fix things?
.

Really simple.

STAHP state subsidised (oxymoron) feminism.

Women naturally levitate towards resources and those that acquire them. They don't so much care about morals or long term viability. (failed marshmallow test)

.

However they'd be acting quite the opposite had their negative decisions affected them and wasn't blocked by the state / cultural Marxism.

Ie. (positive hiring, school syllabus revision, abortion subsidies... Etc) Women would think twice who they chose, what they did with their 18-24 prime years of sexual market value.

.


What do we need in order to have positive incentives?

That's the crux.

In essence... How do you get a winning lottery ticket holder who is about to check in their winnings... to NOT take the money?

Uhh... Really difficult. 'Heroin addict' level difficulty.

That's why most people only believe the fall isn't just inevitable but also necessary.


Scary to realise.

My proposal to this problem lies within the free market. The problem is the state, therefore the solution can't come from the state.
I believe free market inventions that directly or indirectly raise the value of men (e.g. indirectly by creating alternatives that gives men incentive to pick personal freedom over a permanent relationship with a woman. Or directly by enhancing men's existing favorable traits) will give men negotiative power in the dating market and thus allow them to regain some of their lost status within society as mates and as fathers.

The problem is that the state has erased much of the value that women used to place on men. E.g. the introduction of welfare is forced reallocation of wealth, which as we know is mainly produced by men, thus women are no longer required to work on themselves because they won't have to face the consequences of their actions, as you correctly explained.

Since the state will not erase the welfare state and likely not even majorly reduce it, men will not regain their status, and becoming even more productive will in fact only cause more harm to them since they're slave waging their life away to the state, and thus also to the female leeches, and therefore contribute further to the erosion of family and the general dating value of men.

Therefore men must instead follow the same rules that any worker union would - go on strike. And this can be done by giving them the right incentives to endure a long-term, large scale strike.

Eventually the state will be forced into a catch 22: either force men into absolute slave labor (which would eventually ignite a revolution) or return to them their well-deserved status.

In simple terms: go mgtow
More specifically: incentivize men to go mgtow

(I'll patiently wait until you finish )

Well that was my last point <:transdank:462401354745249792>

So it seems we line up in the causes, the better alternative, only I'm unconvinced about the 'strike'

Why do you think strikes work?

They work if the right incentives exist. Right now they don't work because men value the pussy too high.