The Origins of Why Women Are Both Empowered and Weak, and Why They Blame Men for Their Own Limitations. high IQ

[SharpOrange]

found this one on reddit, high iq stuff.​

feminism as ideology that has penetrated mind of every female in postmodern era is against biology.

do give it a read.​

​

​

The Origins of Why Women Are Both Empowered and Weak, and Why They Blame Men for Their Own Limitations, and Why Merit Equals Privilege, Not True Capability​

Opinion

If we remove technological advancement from consideration, which has made men and women similarly capable in terms of productive output, men dominate labour and are the creators of all resources. Women may assist in labour but cannot compete with men in terms of output. In a lawless, labour-based society, women are subservient to men and dependent on them for protection. The one thing that women uniquely possess, of interest to men, is sex. However, they tightly guard it due to its impact on them. Months of pregnancy reduce their physical capacity, and post-delivery responsibilities, such as nursing infants, leave them more exposed to death.
If a man wants to create a family, he would get a woman, work twice as hard to compensate for her loss of output due to childbearing, and then, after the birth of the child, support her for a few more years. He would either stay with them or move away to start a new family. However, if a man desires just sex, nothing could stop him. He could either attract a woman or take her by force; a lone woman has no protection.
This is the most basic truth about a man and a woman, without the involvement of society or civilisation.
After the advent of civilisation, the lives of women were controlled by their families due to their vulnerabilities. They were guarded as they grew up and then married off to stable men. This way, women were provided stability and security, and I assert that there were no better alternatives. Controlling a woman is the best solution civilisations came up with, and that’s why the practice survives to this day. This historical control cannot be called a "restriction of freedom," as feminists claim, because it seems to be a restriction only when viewed from a modern perspective, where one is guaranteed certain rights. However, in nature, you have no rights; you only have what you can take, and the strong always triumph. There were only two choices: a life full of restrictions or going out and getting raped or killed.
Although it’s not relevant to my post, I’m answering one more of their questions: they claim that if there were no men, women would be free, and it’s the existence of men itself that has curtailed the freedom of women, essentially arguing that being a man is a crime and that men should be ashamed of it. This is one of the most foolish yet popular arguments I’ve ever encountered. One cannot compare reality with an ideal situation and then complain about it and seek compensation. If a man were born with no legs, he might argue that had his parents not mated, he would have been spared a life full of suffering. However, that’s a foolish argument; one cannot compare one's current situation with an ideal, unrealistic "what could have been" and blame it on others. A man who has lost his leg in a factory may also blame society for encouraging labour/work itself. If there were no labour and resources were free, he wouldn’t have lost his leg, and thus society must compensate him. Such arguments are absolutely irrational.
Now, let’s focus on the core of my argument:

The Importance of Social Norms:​

Before the advent of policing and strict law enforcement, society was governed by norms. There were no institutions that could punish crimes; however, norms somewhat restricted them. Killing innocents or sadistically punishing others was considered abhorrent by societies, and they acted, in their limited capacity, to prevent such incidents. In India, norm violators were exiled from villages and excommunicated from their castes; they were denied the privilege of marriage and belonging to a community.
After the establishment of the police and judiciary as institutions to ensure justice, things didn’t change much. These institutions are inefficient at handling and preventing small crimes or offences not recognised by law. One man may beat a poor beggar and shatter his bones. What can the beggar do? If the attacker is powerful, he may bribe the police to avoid registering any case and go unpunished. A wealthy man can do whatever he pleases. He can beat and bully people indefinitely and avoid punishment, as long as he doesn't commit a major crime. These offences cannot be prevented by the police.
Society attempts to somewhat prevent such situations by enforcing its norms. It creates beliefs such as "all men are equal," "the strong must never misuse their power," and "the weak and strong deserve equal respect and dignity," etc. Although these beliefs are absolutely false (because a powerful man can do whatever he pleases), they are repeated constantly, and the truth that "the strong always triumph" is suppressed. If society only spoke the truth, there would be an increase in bullying and offences not recognised by law, and people would continue suffering. This is why false but noble ideas are spread so much; they are an attempt to regulate society and discourage violent behaviour.

Empowered Women:​

The world is utilitarian, meaning that value depends on usefulness. One’s output determines one’s value, and the higher one’s utility, the higher the value and better the chances of survival. A higher value brings respect and protection, while lower value makes one susceptible to violence.
Women are weak and not as capable as men. There’s nothing they alone can offer, that a man cannot produce himself, other than sex, and the only reason a man may want a woman is for sex. However, if these truths became popular, there would be a steep rise in offences against women. If society discovered that women, in terms of capacity, are like weak men and statements such as "they’re weak, they’re good for nothing, we need them only for sex" became widespread, women could face many hardships due to their low value. This is why lies about women are fabricated and spread in society: to make them seem more valuable and indispensable, thus allowing them greater protection from offences and more freedom. If society started saying that men get married because they don’t want to cook or clean, women would be seen as low-value, fit only for tasks a man finds boring. Men might treat women as disposable. Cases of violence, neglect, and abuse could rise.
The estimation of value can never be harmless; it impacts behaviour and may lead to violence. It’s due to this that the Woke movement has tried to socially ban determining value. You can no longer describe what a woman is; you can no longer tell people what they are or aren’t capable of. You’re forced to believe that all humans are identically capable. No one is better or worse than others. Tests are inaccurate, and objectivity is impossible. The ban on estimating value is the origin of privilege. The Woke movement cannot always suppress value, and when it arises and challenges their fantasy of equality, they dismiss it as privilege. Merit is a lie; it no longer serves as an objective assessment of your capacity; instead, it’s a result of privilege. You’re not better than others; you’re an oppressor.

The Value of Women:​

Example: You work in an office with a very high workload and need another clerk to help you. You ask your seniors for one. Instead of sending a young, energetic man capable of a lot of work, they send you a middle-aged, mentally slow man. The slow man makes negligible difference in your output, and you’re very irritated by his low performance. What makes you even angrier is that your seniors expect your department to perform better than before, simply because it now has more employees. The new employee has ruined your life. His arrival, instead of helping, has further increased your workload, and the rising pressure is affecting your health. You want him sacked, but when you talk to your seniors, they tell you that his posting is permanent, and he will stay until he retires or dies. You’re extremely angry, and chances are, you’ll start mistreating your colleague.
However, one day your senior calls you and tells you that your colleague is a war veteran. He fought in the Kargil War, killed hundreds of enemies, and was injured in a blast. When he got home to recover, a gas cylinder exploded in his house when he was out on a walk, killing his parents, wife, and newborn twins. It’s due to his injuries and grief that he’s in immense pain and thus slow or unproductive. This revelation would likely impact your attitude toward your colleague. You’d become sympathetic and start treating him very well. You might offer him to stay at home, and even start performing his tasks in the office, despite your own workload.
Let’s understand this: You would have treated your colleague well if he were as capable as you, but since he is less capable and cannot be sacked, you think it’s unfair to you. He assures you that he’s doing his best, but his best isn’t enough, and you may start hating and possibly mistreating him. This anger stems from a difference in value. You mistreat him because he’s not sufficiently valuable, and the cost of his presence easily outweighs his contributions. There’s no peace or stability in your office, and since he cannot be removed, the only solution is to increase his output and value. But since he’s incapable of doing it on his own, how do we fix it? Lie, of course. Your clever senior, who wanted his mentally slow cousin to get a permanent job, spread a false story about him being a war hero and losing his family. Now, your colleague’s value is higher than yours, and this reflects in your behaviour. You may start treating him well and tolerate the difficulties his arrival has caused in your professional life. Your new colleague thus becomes both empowered (strong) and weak. He is weak because he can’t perform basic tasks and needs help, but he’s empowered because of his accomplishments as a war veteran.
The above example illustrates how and why women are both empowered and weak. Empowerment is a lie to ensure that women are tolerated in areas where they can’t compete or don’t deserve to be, and that they’re not subjected to violence due to their incompetence and vulnerabilities. To prevent women from exploitation, lies become necessary. These lies work by making women seem equal or useful to men. If society stopped repeating that women are more capable than men and that their capabilities were hidden due to oppression, the potentially harmful truth would become popular, and so would the abuse of women.
Women have low value, and the only way they can be made to seem useful to men is by exaggerating their capacities. Society does this by talking about how women think differently than men, how they bring a fresh perspective, and how they create more value than men. Even basic human traits like kindness, sympathy, and compassion are exaggerated and celebrated in women, while men are chastised as 'animals.' All of this is done to ensure that men and women acquire equal value, so that one gender doesn’t dominate the other and abuse them.
However, the exaggerated value of women leads to abuse of men in many cases, but women’s value cannot be reduced because, if it were, they’d be relegated to kitchens and mistreated. This is where feminism can be seen as a continuation of conservatism, where fabricated value is ascribed to women (e.g., women are goddesses due to their role as mothers) for their protection.
Feminism asserts that women are more capable than men in order to demand concessions for women and to ensure their protection and freedom. However, this is also why patriarchy/men are blamed more than they deserve. History is filled with examples of men’s superiority over women, but since the social belief in equality must be maintained, biology is denied, and history is revised. Women blame their lack of an illustrious past on men, which is accurate. However, when asked why they aren’t using their superior brains in sciences or other fields that could benefit humanity, instead of simply accepting that they’re not interested in such fields and acknowledging the temperamental differences between men and women, feminists aggressively assert the complete equality of men and women and in order to protect the lie of equality, and prevent men from emerging as superior, even in terms of their selection of subjects in college, blame patriarchy.
Women claim that men’s domination of science restricts them, or they narrate a false story about how patriarchy is responsible for them not studying sciences. There is no end to it; women always find a way to avoid competition and blame their own deficiencies on men and patriarchy. Furthermore, to ensure that men’s accomplishments and rising value don’t reduce the value of women, feminists dismiss men’s achievements and compare performance with capacity. For instance, if a man invents a machine that creates inexhaustible energy, women would claim they could have done it too but were stopped by patriarchy. Essentially, they compare the reality of men’s performance with the fantasy of women’s indefinite capabilities, and they won’t let anyone test their capacities. Only women can tell you what a woman is capable of; their capacity can never be quantified.
Unfortunately, there are no better alternatives or practical solutions for this problem. This current arrangement has been the most stable and effective in allowing women freedom and protecting them. It is very similar to traditional societies’ worship of women merely for their biology, being mothers, and fully rejecting any attempts at utilitarian evaluation of women.
There can be no equality; one gender will always emerge as dominant. Since men’s domination has been more violent, women are allowed to rule and dominate men. Women cannot be criticised at all, because if the truth is revealed, they’d get abused. They can either rule or be abused; there’s no middle ground. They are indeed the weaker gender and cannot escape competition like us, at least for now.
It’s both ironic and farcical that, in their effort to lead women and change society, feminists ended up doing exactly what patriarchy did: assigning false value to women and silencing all criticism with the revolutionary retort, 'We’re ladies, you can’t talk to us like that.'

Spoiler: source

 

[Shahnameh]

 

[3links2]

Not a single molecule

 

[puniteking]

found this one on reddit, high iq stuff.​

feminism as ideology that has penetrated mind of every female in postmodern era is against biology.

do give it a read.​

​

​

The Origins of Why Women Are Both Empowered and Weak, and Why They Blame Men for Their Own Limitations, and Why Merit Equals Privilege, Not True Capability​

Opinion

If we remove technological advancement from consideration, which has made men and women similarly capable in terms of productive output, men dominate labour and are the creators of all resources. Women may assist in labour but cannot compete with men in terms of output. In a lawless, labour-based society, women are subservient to men and dependent on them for protection. The one thing that women uniquely possess, of interest to men, is sex. However, they tightly guard it due to its impact on them. Months of pregnancy reduce their physical capacity, and post-delivery responsibilities, such as nursing infants, leave them more exposed to death.
If a man wants to create a family, he would get a woman, work twice as hard to compensate for her loss of output due to childbearing, and then, after the birth of the child, support her for a few more years. He would either stay with them or move away to start a new family. However, if a man desires just sex, nothing could stop him. He could either attract a woman or take her by force; a lone woman has no protection.
This is the most basic truth about a man and a woman, without the involvement of society or civilisation.
After the advent of civilisation, the lives of women were controlled by their families due to their vulnerabilities. They were guarded as they grew up and then married off to stable men. This way, women were provided stability and security, and I assert that there were no better alternatives. Controlling a woman is the best solution civilisations came up with, and that’s why the practice survives to this day. This historical control cannot be called a "restriction of freedom," as feminists claim, because it seems to be a restriction only when viewed from a modern perspective, where one is guaranteed certain rights. However, in nature, you have no rights; you only have what you can take, and the strong always triumph. There were only two choices: a life full of restrictions or going out and getting raped or killed.
Although it’s not relevant to my post, I’m answering one more of their questions: they claim that if there were no men, women would be free, and it’s the existence of men itself that has curtailed the freedom of women, essentially arguing that being a man is a crime and that men should be ashamed of it. This is one of the most foolish yet popular arguments I’ve ever encountered. One cannot compare reality with an ideal situation and then complain about it and seek compensation. If a man were born with no legs, he might argue that had his parents not mated, he would have been spared a life full of suffering. However, that’s a foolish argument; one cannot compare one's current situation with an ideal, unrealistic "what could have been" and blame it on others. A man who has lost his leg in a factory may also blame society for encouraging labour/work itself. If there were no labour and resources were free, he wouldn’t have lost his leg, and thus society must compensate him. Such arguments are absolutely irrational.
Now, let’s focus on the core of my argument:

The Importance of Social Norms:​

Before the advent of policing and strict law enforcement, society was governed by norms. There were no institutions that could punish crimes; however, norms somewhat restricted them. Killing innocents or sadistically punishing others was considered abhorrent by societies, and they acted, in their limited capacity, to prevent such incidents. In India, norm violators were exiled from villages and excommunicated from their castes; they were denied the privilege of marriage and belonging to a community.
After the establishment of the police and judiciary as institutions to ensure justice, things didn’t change much. These institutions are inefficient at handling and preventing small crimes or offences not recognised by law. One man may beat a poor beggar and shatter his bones. What can the beggar do? If the attacker is powerful, he may bribe the police to avoid registering any case and go unpunished. A wealthy man can do whatever he pleases. He can beat and bully people indefinitely and avoid punishment, as long as he doesn't commit a major crime. These offences cannot be prevented by the police.
Society attempts to somewhat prevent such situations by enforcing its norms. It creates beliefs such as "all men are equal," "the strong must never misuse their power," and "the weak and strong deserve equal respect and dignity," etc. Although these beliefs are absolutely false (because a powerful man can do whatever he pleases), they are repeated constantly, and the truth that "the strong always triumph" is suppressed. If society only spoke the truth, there would be an increase in bullying and offences not recognised by law, and people would continue suffering. This is why false but noble ideas are spread so much; they are an attempt to regulate society and discourage violent behaviour.

Empowered Women:​

The world is utilitarian, meaning that value depends on usefulness. One’s output determines one’s value, and the higher one’s utility, the higher the value and better the chances of survival. A higher value brings respect and protection, while lower value makes one susceptible to violence.
Women are weak and not as capable as men. There’s nothing they alone can offer, that a man cannot produce himself, other than sex, and the only reason a man may want a woman is for sex. However, if these truths became popular, there would be a steep rise in offences against women. If society discovered that women, in terms of capacity, are like weak men and statements such as "they’re weak, they’re good for nothing, we need them only for sex" became widespread, women could face many hardships due to their low value. This is why lies about women are fabricated and spread in society: to make them seem more valuable and indispensable, thus allowing them greater protection from offences and more freedom. If society started saying that men get married because they don’t want to cook or clean, women would be seen as low-value, fit only for tasks a man finds boring. Men might treat women as disposable. Cases of violence, neglect, and abuse could rise.
The estimation of value can never be harmless; it impacts behaviour and may lead to violence. It’s due to this that the Woke movement has tried to socially ban determining value. You can no longer describe what a woman is; you can no longer tell people what they are or aren’t capable of. You’re forced to believe that all humans are identically capable. No one is better or worse than others. Tests are inaccurate, and objectivity is impossible. The ban on estimating value is the origin of privilege. The Woke movement cannot always suppress value, and when it arises and challenges their fantasy of equality, they dismiss it as privilege. Merit is a lie; it no longer serves as an objective assessment of your capacity; instead, it’s a result of privilege. You’re not better than others; you’re an oppressor.

The Value of Women:​

Example: You work in an office with a very high workload and need another clerk to help you. You ask your seniors for one. Instead of sending a young, energetic man capable of a lot of work, they send you a middle-aged, mentally slow man. The slow man makes negligible difference in your output, and you’re very irritated by his low performance. What makes you even angrier is that your seniors expect your department to perform better than before, simply because it now has more employees. The new employee has ruined your life. His arrival, instead of helping, has further increased your workload, and the rising pressure is affecting your health. You want him sacked, but when you talk to your seniors, they tell you that his posting is permanent, and he will stay until he retires or dies. You’re extremely angry, and chances are, you’ll start mistreating your colleague.
However, one day your senior calls you and tells you that your colleague is a war veteran. He fought in the Kargil War, killed hundreds of enemies, and was injured in a blast. When he got home to recover, a gas cylinder exploded in his house when he was out on a walk, killing his parents, wife, and newborn twins. It’s due to his injuries and grief that he’s in immense pain and thus slow or unproductive. This revelation would likely impact your attitude toward your colleague. You’d become sympathetic and start treating him very well. You might offer him to stay at home, and even start performing his tasks in the office, despite your own workload.
Let’s understand this: You would have treated your colleague well if he were as capable as you, but since he is less capable and cannot be sacked, you think it’s unfair to you. He assures you that he’s doing his best, but his best isn’t enough, and you may start hating and possibly mistreating him. This anger stems from a difference in value. You mistreat him because he’s not sufficiently valuable, and the cost of his presence easily outweighs his contributions. There’s no peace or stability in your office, and since he cannot be removed, the only solution is to increase his output and value. But since he’s incapable of doing it on his own, how do we fix it? Lie, of course. Your clever senior, who wanted his mentally slow cousin to get a permanent job, spread a false story about him being a war hero and losing his family. Now, your colleague’s value is higher than yours, and this reflects in your behaviour. You may start treating him well and tolerate the difficulties his arrival has caused in your professional life. Your new colleague thus becomes both empowered (strong) and weak. He is weak because he can’t perform basic tasks and needs help, but he’s empowered because of his accomplishments as a war veteran.
The above example illustrates how and why women are both empowered and weak. Empowerment is a lie to ensure that women are tolerated in areas where they can’t compete or don’t deserve to be, and that they’re not subjected to violence due to their incompetence and vulnerabilities. To prevent women from exploitation, lies become necessary. These lies work by making women seem equal or useful to men. If society stopped repeating that women are more capable than men and that their capabilities were hidden due to oppression, the potentially harmful truth would become popular, and so would the abuse of women.
Women have low value, and the only way they can be made to seem useful to men is by exaggerating their capacities. Society does this by talking about how women think differently than men, how they bring a fresh perspective, and how they create more value than men. Even basic human traits like kindness, sympathy, and compassion are exaggerated and celebrated in women, while men are chastised as 'animals.' All of this is done to ensure that men and women acquire equal value, so that one gender doesn’t dominate the other and abuse them.
However, the exaggerated value of women leads to abuse of men in many cases, but women’s value cannot be reduced because, if it were, they’d be relegated to kitchens and mistreated. This is where feminism can be seen as a continuation of conservatism, where fabricated value is ascribed to women (e.g., women are goddesses due to their role as mothers) for their protection.
Feminism asserts that women are more capable than men in order to demand concessions for women and to ensure their protection and freedom. However, this is also why patriarchy/men are blamed more than they deserve. History is filled with examples of men’s superiority over women, but since the social belief in equality must be maintained, biology is denied, and history is revised. Women blame their lack of an illustrious past on men, which is accurate. However, when asked why they aren’t using their superior brains in sciences or other fields that could benefit humanity, instead of simply accepting that they’re not interested in such fields and acknowledging the temperamental differences between men and women, feminists aggressively assert the complete equality of men and women and in order to protect the lie of equality, and prevent men from emerging as superior, even in terms of their selection of subjects in college, blame patriarchy.
Women claim that men’s domination of science restricts them, or they narrate a false story about how patriarchy is responsible for them not studying sciences. There is no end to it; women always find a way to avoid competition and blame their own deficiencies on men and patriarchy. Furthermore, to ensure that men’s accomplishments and rising value don’t reduce the value of women, feminists dismiss men’s achievements and compare performance with capacity. For instance, if a man invents a machine that creates inexhaustible energy, women would claim they could have done it too but were stopped by patriarchy. Essentially, they compare the reality of men’s performance with the fantasy of women’s indefinite capabilities, and they won’t let anyone test their capacities. Only women can tell you what a woman is capable of; their capacity can never be quantified.
Unfortunately, there are no better alternatives or practical solutions for this problem. This current arrangement has been the most stable and effective in allowing women freedom and protecting them. It is very similar to traditional societies’ worship of women merely for their biology, being mothers, and fully rejecting any attempts at utilitarian evaluation of women.
There can be no equality; one gender will always emerge as dominant. Since men’s domination has been more violent, women are allowed to rule and dominate men. Women cannot be criticised at all, because if the truth is revealed, they’d get abused. They can either rule or be abused; there’s no middle ground. They are indeed the weaker gender and cannot escape competition like us, at least for now.
It’s both ironic and farcical that, in their effort to lead women and change society, feminists ended up doing exactly what patriarchy did: assigning false value to women and silencing all criticism with the revolutionary retort, 'We’re ladies, you can’t talk to us like that.'

Spoiler: source