The Reason We Live In A Matriarchy And Not A Patriarchy

[dreamcake1mo]

Lets talk about the facts.

They are generally 2 genders. Male and female. This is determined by chromosomes and systems after like primary sex hormonal cycling and genes. We know its a fact that hormones change the brain chemistry. In short, men and women think differently and are more likely to have sex specific brain patterns.

In society, we see that men are (likely) to operate in a preposition where they rely on logical processes and reason at the detriment of emotional and social awareness. Likewise, we see that women are likely to operate in a preposition that favors emotional-socio brain processes at the detriment of logical processes and sound reason (objectivity).

Because of this, this is why it can be observed that the majority of AVERAGE men in todays society tend to not be as successful as the majority of AVERAGE women in todays society. This is because success in todays society is MORE dependent on social psychology and support networks than what it used to be before.

The world reveals a lack of understanding of adult male emotional psychology, and psychology in general.

It's not that men suck at this, but that the social impulses to communicate emotionally aren't always a primary to men, to the same degree as it is a women. It's not a problem by itself, but is a problem when in a post-tribal world; social support networks and social psychology is the main factor into survival, and people can become very socially isolated (thus dead ended) if their socio-emotional communicative capabilities drive is not enough to secure sufficient social support networks. A mans drive may instead be directed toward something else, like a hyper fixation on hobby interest, or a character trait uncooperative towards social normalcy; such as divergency.

Let me explain a bit more.

The state of our society has long evolved from religious/feudal order. In times past, men had inherit value and respect due to his nature being more likely to innovate, take risks, lead by force (non covertly), and be more likely to diverge (divergency as in thinking/behaving outside of the norm, often leading to innovation or other solution to problems). This was required in a undeveloped society because in essence, men needed to behave like this so society could properly get off its bootstraps when it comes to sciences, risky infrastructure ideas, and centralization of power and resources. This is why in third world countries, we still see some resemblance of traditional patriarchy.

Now, since we have developed enough as a society where inventions are no longer required, a lot of the traits men generally are naturally proficient in is not as important, which leads to a loss of inherit value socially. For example, in the west, divergency is seen as rebellious, and leading by force seen as aggression. This is a sign that the primary value shift of society has turned to socio economic and social structured psychology patterns. The shift also aligns with integral theory maps of psychological levels, such as maps made by Ken Wilber and Clare W. Graves.

And just like i said before, women "excel" at emotional-socio processes. In essence, being a women comes with having a hormonally feminized brain and emotional configuration that likely involves, relative to males, active desire towards socio-emotional behavior and capabilities. In short, we live in a world where the likley women preposition is prioritized. A world where social support network psychology is key to living a independent and healthy life, especially since the introduction technology's such as the internet. I'm not just speaking out of my hindquarters either.

There is objective data('s) that prove they are overwhelmingly more social support networks for women than men that exist, such as but not limited to; More social programs, affirmative actions, study's that prove more positive reception happens to the female gender (women are wonderful effect), favorable paternity laws, child custody, and also archetypes and social spaces which are not as negatively labeled. They are also statistically more homeless men than women in almost all metrics that exist, yet more women shelters than men shelters.

This is exactly why its appropriate to say we live in a matriarchy and not a patriarchy. Not because women are more capable, or that they are more prolific. Not because the top % of men control everything. But because the society structure we live in favors a women preposition (in short). It is by this definition we live in a matriarchal system. Feminist will gaslight saying we live in a patriarchy because men still control everything essentially. And while it is true that the holders of power and wealth are all disproportionately male, it is also true that the percentage of males who own all of these things are only a very small segment of the population. as well as many other factors determining the discrepancy.

When it comes to your AVERAGE man and AVERAGE woman. Average women have way more advantage in this world than average men. Men are underserviced by mental health resources and programs to help those who have fallen down. The family, community, and religious safety nets of mid to late 20th Century (from old society systems i referred to above) have all but evaporated. Our peers, particularly our female potential mates view any sort of sensitivity or emotional need as weakness to be shun. We are held to traditional roles simply out of conflict of interest. And the world even goes as far to label males spaces where they can gain support networks negatively, like "incel". As such, even the resources that should be available to him (the average man) are often not palatable or usable in todays time without massive consequences and detriments.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Pin this to save mankind.

 

[Debetro]

 

[Klasik616]

All you have to do is vote for the right, the left is only focused on women and they do not want equality.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

All you have to do is vote for the right, the left is only focused on women and they do not want equality.

They do want equality.

Its just that equality is a way of covertly gaining power. The truth is, people aren't equal. And in short, yoking people who have different traits and prepositions as the same standard has to favor someone more than the other. Men psychology tend to battle these differences out overtly, not covertly, under the guise of equality.

Think of equality like the debate on women disparity with pay rates. The argument was that women get paid less than men. Equality semblances and groups started to form that attempted to bridge the gap with affirmative action.

However, the gap didn't exist due to discrimination. The reality was that women simply worked fewer hours and choose to work in generally lower-paying industries. They also didn't really need to work as hard as men to match a mans quality of life. Equality is like raising the wages of those women who choose to work less, to those of "men" who work harder. So while now the wages may be equal, the result is not fair.

What happens is that the men who worked harder start to feel abused because they are working harder, yet are getting less than those doing less. This idea is basically what happens on different facets of life to men.

The real solution is to find interoperability according to ones traits. Women tend to have interest in things men tend to lack in, and likewise, men tend to excel at some things women do not. And its there that we should see statistics of domination. The problem is the weaponization of social support networks against men support networks, combined with weaponizing the primary state of society which favors social support psychology against primary male psychology as a whole. These at the least should be independent. Meaning, men should be allowed to have social support networks that favor their preposition, and that society's support networks should not only adhere to primary women prepositions.

In short, the ruling authority such as governments have not acted in our best interest.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

The real solution is to find interoperability according to ones traits. Women tend to have interest in things men tend to lack in, and likewise, men tend to excel at some things women do not. And its there that we should see statistics of domination. The problem is the weaponization of social support networks against men support networks, combined with weaponizing the primary state of society which favors social support psychology against primary male psychology as a whole. These at the least should be independent.

*Weaponization of existing social support networks against the formation and thriving of men's support networks, combined with a global effort of weaponizing the primary socio-emotional psychology against primary male psychology (Often identified with categorization efforts against primary male logic, leading to popularization of anti male psychology into categorizations such as misogyny, homophobia etc.).

 

[Deleted member 81007]

We are held to traditional roles simply out of conflict of interest. And the world even goes as far to label males spaces where they can gain support networks negatively, like "incel". As such, even the resources that should be available to him (the average man) are often not palatable or usable in todays time without massive consequences and detriments.

we are told we support rape, terrorists etc because of a few crazy people. They say “look at these pathetic incels pursuing surgery” lumping us in the same category with rapists and murderers. Yet when women in mass get surgery the blame goes on men for imposing the beauty standards. But when men discuss women’s beauty standards they get called incel. What kinda clown world we living in lmao

 

[ʾAbū al-Qāsim]

All you have to do is vote for the right, the left is only focused on women and they do not want equality.

Voting is cope.
Only solution to your problems is to do as they did in the Middle East. They got organized and fought the Jews who are raping them. IS rule would be better for Middle East than the current cuck governments.

 

[1966Ford]

They do want equality.

Its just that equality is a way of covertly gaining power. The truth is, people aren't equal. And in short, yoking people who have different traits and prepositions as the same standard has to favor someone more than the other. Men psychology tend to battle these differences out overtly, not covertly, under the guise of equality.

Think of equality like the debate on women disparity with pay rates. The argument was that women get paid less than men. Equality semblances and groups started to form that attempted to bridge the gap with affirmative action.

However, the gap didn't exist due to discrimination. The reality was that women simply worked fewer hours and choose to work in generally lower-paying industries. They also didn't really need to work as hard as men to match a mans quality of life. Equality is like raising the wages of those women who choose to work less, to those of "men" who work harder. So while now the wages may be equal, the result is not fair.

What happens is that the men who worked harder start to feel abused because they are working harder, yet are getting less than those doing less. This idea is basically what happens on different facets of life to men.

The real solution is to find interoperability according to ones traits. Women tend to have interest in things men tend to lack in, and likewise, men tend to excel at some things women do not. And its there that we should see statistics of domination. The problem is the weaponization of social support networks against men support networks, combined with weaponizing the primary state of society which favors social support psychology against primary male psychology as a whole. These at the least should be independent. Meaning, men should be allowed to have social support networks that favor their preposition, and that society's support networks should not only adhere to primary women prepositions.

In short, the ruling authority such as governments have not acted in our best interest.

This is what I always notice when doing school projects, the women in my group are somewhat Dunning-Kruger defined.

 

[Pixie Dust]

Voting is cope.
Only solution to your problems is to do as they did in the Middle East. They got organized and fought the Jews who are raping them. IS rule would be better for Middle East than the current cuck governments.

I thought you said the middle east is owned by the West

Last i checked jews killed more palestinians than vice versa. They have, in every israel war.

So basically the exact opposite of what you're saying. The middle east is losing

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Yeah, society has changed a lot over the past century as industrialisation has reached the point where traditional family and social structures have dissoluted over time. I will disagree that the society we are living in is a matriarchy though, as females are not the main group in authority, but it is definitely not a patriarchy either. I would argue that it would be better defined as a 'feminine-coded' or gynocratic society, as its psyche is inherently feminine and is primarily beneficial towards women.

 

[Aladin]

It’s because of the Jews.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Yeah, society has changed a lot over the past century as industrialisation has reached the point where traditional family and social structures have dissoluted over time. I will disagree that the society we are living in is a matriarchy though, as females are not the main group in authority, but it is definitely not a patriarchy either. I would argue that it would be better defined as a 'feminine-coded' or gynocratic society, as its psyche is inherently feminine and is primarily beneficial towards women.

I have the same thoughts. Though i say matriarchy for convience. Not that obviously it adheres to the traditional definition to the T.

More like a argument against the grifters who still have the gall to say we live in a patriarchy while also ignoring these factors of society mentioned in my post.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

This is what I always notice when doing school projects, the women in my group are somewhat Dunning-Kruger defined.

Elaborate?

Voting is cope.
Only solution to your problems is to do as they did in the Middle East. They got organized and fought the Jews who are raping them. IS rule would be better for Middle East than the current cuck governments.

I personally do not think they will stop until they realize men are seriously going through extinction. Our new world will be filled with all sorts of intersex symptoms and a large part of this is because the desirable traits are hyperpolarized to fit primary female preposition. In short, i also think this is why we see a lot of homosexual men or men with otherwise primary motional-socio brain processes and less of that primary divergent logical and reasoning preposition.

That and of course when a war needs to be fought, or when something urgent needs fixing like the broken system we are emerging into. Then men will be on the plate to be used and abused once again. Stacy remembers to cook and clean.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Reminder that the male suicide rate is at least 4x higher than women on all metrics regardless of race. 80% of all suicides are male.

Men are clearly struggling and the world chooses to ignore this. Interesting

 

[ʾAbū al-Qāsim]

I personally do not think they will stop until they realize men are seriously going through extinction. Our new world will be filled with all sorts of intersex symptoms

Really they want to get rid of masculinity and all of what it entails from strength, honor, purpose and the likes. They need to eliminate the fighting limb of humankind in order to impose their dictates upon the helpless population. In history class we learn about armed uprisings of the population against the government, but can you imagine another French Revolution taking place in the modern world? Never.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Really they want to get rid of masculinity and all of what it entails from strength, honor, purpose and the likes. They need to eliminate the fighting limb of humankind in order to impose their dictates upon the helpless population. In history class we learn about armed uprisings of the population against the government, but can you imagine another French Revolution taking place in the modern world? Never.

Spot on

 

[dreamcake1mo]

One of the biggest sins of society is equality of gender.

Men and women do not think the same, and by many metrics are universally distinct from each other psychologically and physically. But by suggesting our minds, psychology and prepositions to be equal (notice the equality), what they really did was take away men's only distinction which we gained our value from. Now, since the world thinks men and women are of the same mind, the body then becomes the value on which men and society place the distinction at. And we all know a men is chemically induced to favor a women's body and fashion, in greater fashion than how a women would favor a mans body and fashion. This by itself has ruined the sexual marketplace and created a bunch of suffering men.

This is also one of the reasons is dislike any sexual agenda and alphabet agencies that push this idea of equality (homonogization) of sex. It is simply not true. Though, they are some conditions such as intersex prepositions which may bridge the gap in some aspects.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

I honestly do not tolerate women's hate for men on any fronts.

Men should be worshipped and treated like a endangered species. Especially the decent ones. Our suicide rates are 5x higher, with 80% all suicides being men. Our death rates are significantly higher, and there's significantly more men who are being born with intersex conditions. Yet, we have big data failing to properly represent just how many men are born and stay alive in todays society. There's probably 1 man to every 5 women or even more, since homosexual men also exist.

Even in the so called patriarchy, that average men still had it 5x worst. When men get destroyed in wars, whose typically spared? Women and children. When men fight wars and build risky infrastructure, who's left in the house to cook and clean? Women. Was cooking and cleaning, staying in the house and not voting so bad in a society filled with death? Men since the dawn of time have always took more risk, and have always been the primary target for suffering. All races of men too; Black men, African, European, Mexican, white men etc. The women by comparison since the dawn of time have always had the easy pass in the form of; their MEN.

Imagine now, we have all the facilities to live without working. Women sit up on their high horses and oppress men with their nonsense politics and equality power plays. The world shifts from traditional capitalism into social capitalism and we see the government fail to provide any backbone to male psychology. We still see women cling to traditional roles for men to be a provider yet monopolize the entire social capitalism system to favor their social prepositions. And don't get me started on equality. Equality is like training your ass off for first place, and almost dying trying to get there, only to find out the gold medal was given to the loser in 9th who knew the announcers dad. The only acceptable form of DEI and equality politics should be provided to men of different races, and never women.

Men can never have a break. We live in a society where there's more support for women on all fronts. Laws, government programs, psychology (women are wonderful effect). Yet women's psychology still try to shun men's spaces (labeling them incel) and social support networks, as well as utilize men to still be slaves to them in the form of modern dating and popular culture dynamics.

No species of gender is as parasitic to men than the human women. The only way a women in todays climate is not parasitic to a man is if shes her mother. And even that relationship is sour for similar reasons.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

By the way, i am sick of tired of people spewing around the word emotional intelligence.

"Emotional intelligence" is not a real word or a real thing... there are already words to use that more accurately describe what is meant by that word.

I have noticed that lately, the phrase "emotional intelligence" is basically utilized as a covert way for women to increase the perception of their capabilities. Its known that women are more emotionally REACTIVE. But women, instead of call it how it is, started to use the word "intelligent" behind it so they can make it seem as if men are not as emotionally "intelligent" than they are, since, its known even by women, that a women's preposition is historically and statistically more emotionally reactive. Meaning, women who spew the "emotionally intelligent" rhetoric are implying that women are always in this manner more likely to be more intelligent than men.

What a very pitiful and desperate claim to genetic superiority.

The truth is, women have a preposition that makes them more emotionally reactive. Emotions are important, but in no way are men less emotionally intelligent than women. Women tend to utilize emotions to get what they want covertly, but men tend to control their emotions more than women and get what they want overtly. This has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with application.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

The only acceptable form of DEI and equality politics should be provided to men of different races, and never women.

Also, the reason i say this is because, since men are lacking mentally when it comes to socio-eco processes, they should be provided DEI, decentralizing proper men of all races to take high "social" positions. The reason is because those social positions exceed most if not all performance based positions men typically engage in, thus creating a discrepancy of pay between women and men.

Which is why i think there is a huge influx of crime and suicide amongst men, as well as a global hypergamy that disadvantages men.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

@dreamcake1mo

You are faulty of viewing the past in a romantic way. What precise historical knowledge do you have of society during the different phases it went through? Do you think low to middle class men held any kind of power? Do you think they could choose the woman they wanted, that they could slay at will?

 

[dreamcake1mo]

@dreamcake1mo

You are faulty of viewing the past in a romantic way. What precise historical knowledge do you have of society during the different phases it went through? Do you think low to middle class men held any kind of power? Do you think they could choose the woman they wanted, that they could slay at will?

My general thoughts are that MORE men had a fair chance for women. Instead of it being only like the top, 10-5% of men getting the majority of hot or looksmatched women, it was probably somewhere more fair like 30-40%. I havent done any hard historical research, except for a few based on past and present psychological development levels, as well as observation and data about the elements of modern living the old generations did not have (social media/internet is a BIG one). But you also have culture, where a unmarried women was not necessarily seen in the best light, as well as a hyper-promiscuous one. We dont even have to go that old, maybe 300 years ago max. I cant confirm this for obvious reasons, but all the data we have on old culture suggests this.
.
While i dont think lower class men held any "power", and while i also do not think they could choose the women they wanted, i think because there was no internet, even if there was a pretty women, its not like in todays time where all average women are exposed and advertised. Less exposure=less competition. I do think that without internet, many of these lower class men still had a good chance of being in a relationship with the people around them. Largely, because innate psychology does not change much. Instead of competing with models, celebrity, or wealthy paypig, you would only be competing with hometown athlete or someone else local. The only difference would be that internet gave women more exposure as well as exposed them to more men, causing a even greater hypergamy than the world knew previously. So while they likely still showed similar behaviors of today, i think todays modern "element" makes todays time (when it comes to relationships with women) very much worst.

 

[Darkeningstar]

By the way, i am sick of tired of people spewing around the word emotional intelligence.

"Emotional intelligence" is not a real word or a real thing... there are already words to use that more accurately describe what is meant by that word.

I have noticed that lately, the phrase "emotional intelligence" is basically utilized as a covert way for women to increase the perception of their capabilities. Its known that women are more emotionally REACTIVE. But women, instead of call it how it is, started to use the word "intelligent" behind it so they can make it seem as if men are not as emotionally "intelligent" than they are, since, its known even by women, that a women's preposition is historically and statistically more emotionally reactive. Meaning, women who spew the "emotionally intelligent" rhetoric are implying that women are always in this manner more likely to be more intelligent than men.

What a very pitiful and desperate claim to genetic superiority.

The truth is, women have a preposition that makes them more emotionally reactive. Emotions are important, but in no way are men less emotionally intelligent than women. Women tend to utilize emotions to get what they want covertly, but men tend to control their emotions more than women and get what they want overtly. This has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with application.

The concept of EQ is fallacious, defined and confused similar to how emotionality and emotional intensity are confused.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

My general thoughts are that MORE men had a fair chance for women. Instead of it being only like the top, 10-5% of men getting the majority of hot and looksmaxxed women, it was probably somewhere more fair like 30%. I havent done any hard historical research, except for a few based on psycological development levels, as well as observation and data about the elements of modern living the old generations did not have (social media/internet is a BIG one)
.
While i dont think lower class men held any "power". I dont think they could choose the women they wanted, but then again, there was no internet so even if there was a pretty women, its not like in todays time where all average women are exposed and advertised. Less exposure=less competition. I do think that without internet, many of these lower class men still had a good chance of being in a relationship with the people around them. Largely, because psycology does not change much, the only difference would be that internet gave women more exposure as well as exposed them to more men, causing a even greater hypergamy than the world knew previously.

First, read this, pretty enlightening.

“Casual sex” is often mismeasured and overestimated - Date Psychology

On "casual sex," "Chad harems," and STDs.

datepsychology.com

You have to understand that the internet and it's discussions act as echo chambers. For example, if most of your experience is TikTok, dating apps experiments and minimal healthy social interactions, your view is going to be totally skewed.

If you go outside you will encounter that most couples of all ages are mostly looksmatched, is pretty rare to see a LTR where one of the persons don't fit the other.

In the other hand, I agree that the internet and social media creates a problem regarding relationships, but not only confined to the romantic and sexual part. Liquid Modernity is a work from the sociologist Bauman where in summary he defines how the solid connections between human beings are fading in today's age.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

First, read this, pretty enlightening.

“Casual sex” is often mismeasured and overestimated - Date Psychology

On "casual sex," "Chad harems," and STDs.

datepsychology.com

You have to understand that the internet and it's discussions act as echo chambers. For example, if most of your experience is TikTok, dating apps experiments and minimal healthy social interactions, your view is going to be totally skewed.

If you go outside you will encounter that most couples of all ages are mostly looksmatched, is pretty rare to see a LTR where one of the persons don't fit the other.

In the other hand, I agree that the internet and social media creates a problem regarding relationships, but not only confined to the romantic and sexual part. Liquid Modernity is a work from the sociologist Bauman where in summary he defines how the solid connections between human beings are fading in today's age.

Most of my information on interactions come from real life.

For reference, i used to host and attend major social events all across the US. I am not unexperienced with women at all.

I also constantly see these issues i present happen in day to day life. And we have entire case studies and reports about similar behaviors on a global level.

One big factor when considering looksmatched relationships is the guys role. Women are not only requiring more from their partners (since they have more advantage to "require"), but men are also paying for this relationship more disproportionally than the women. Even institutionally, with marriage and child support, or the other paternity laws the west laid out that the world followed. This is important, because this is just one of the many subjects of research that validates my overall point.

To reference that chart shown in the link you sent me at the end. If that data showed the frequency of sex, plus the micros such as identifying what vectors determine "20%" then it would make sense. See, that person you referenced has it wrong because hes using charts that don't prove much of their point to explain anything other than "women and men are in relationships". When the subject could very well be that "men do not benefit as much in a relationship with a women, than a women does"

For example, in his last chart, the original use for that chart is actually one that monitors psychological behavior towards attraction, not dating statistics or statistics about casual sex. In another way, its nonsense because they also fail to see in their data that women, especially the ones taking surveys on sex, perhaps are more likely to not mention how many partners they had sex with. With a lot of them not even seeing one night stands as sex at all, as well as like the person highlighted, oral sex, which would certainly in my case be a behavior that implies attraction.

And even if all data was in correct format, they are attempting to use only one weak study on casual sex to go against a topic that is validates by many more dynamics and psychology subjects/studies.

The reason i have these beliefs is not because im some unexperienced kid. I dont even have a tiktok account. When you have high repeat frequency of personal experiences and witnesses of certain aspects in female nature, as well as studies and observations from others that validate it, as well as one of the only existing mens spaces that is reported by major news outlets to be growing at a extreme rate globally "echoing" the same things. who am i to believe? Nobody and just go outside and pretend? No Its illogical to do that when you can simply advantage in the situation and see the change with your own eyes.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

Most of my information on interactions come from real life.

For reference, i used to host and attend major social events all across the US. I am not unexperienced with women at all.

I also constantly see these issues i present happen in day to day life. And we have entire case studies and reports about similar behaviors on a global level.

One big factor when considering looksmatched relationships is the guys role. Women are not only requiring more from their partners (since they have more advantage to "require"), but men are also paying for this relationship more disproportionally than the women. Even institutionally, with marriage and child support, or the other paternity laws the west laid out that the world followed. This is important, because this is just one of the many subjects of research that validates my overall point.

To reference that chart shown in the link you sent me at the end. If that data showed the frequency of sex, plus the micros such as identifying what vectors determine "20%" then it would make sense. See, that person you referenced has it wrong because hes using charts that don't prove much of their point to explain anything other than "women and men are in relationships". When the subject could very well be that "men do not benefit as much in a relationship with a women, than a women does"

For example, in his last chart, the original use for that chart is actually one that monitors psychological behavior towards attraction, not dating statistics or statistics about casual sex. In another way, its nonsense because they also fail to see in their data that women, especially the ones taking surveys on sex, perhaps are more likely to not mention how many partners they had sex with. With a lot of them not even seeing one night stands as sex at all, as well as like the person highlighted, oral sex, which would certainly in my case be a behavior that implies attraction.

And even if all data was in correct format, they are attempting to use only one weak study on casual sex to go against a topic that is validates by many more dynamics and psychology subjects/studies.

The reason i have these beliefs is not because im some unexperienced kid. I dont even have a tiktok account. When you have high repeat frequency of personal experiences and witnesses of certain aspects in female nature, as well as studies and observations from others that validate it, as well as one of the only existing mens spaces that is reported by major news outlets to be growing at a extreme rate globally "echoing" the same things. who am i to believe? Nobody and just go outside and pretend? No Its illogical to do that when you can simply advantage in the situation and see the change with your own eyes.

You articulated your points exceptionally well. I, too, have experience with dating, sex, women, and social dynamics.

In essence, a relationship is a mutual agreement based on shared interests. It's undeniable that men today possess less intrinsic value than in previous generations, and traditional values have significantly eroded. The prevailing "meta" is no longer about following God, getting married, and starting a family. Instead, we find ourselves in an era dominated by interconnectivity, consumerism, and globalization, where individualism, hedonism, and selfishness are increasingly prevalent.

However, despite these trends, it’s important to recognize that not all women in long-term relationships (LTRs) are untrustworthy. Many people still uphold strong values, demonstrating respect and commitment to those they care about—this has been my experience as well.

You mentioned female hypergamy, but it's important to acknowledge that men can be hypergamous too. We often desire the most attractive and youthful women, and if you’re family-oriented, you would also seek someone with good values.

The challenge for many men, however, lies in their limited ability to choose. Men tend to be more proactive in pursuing relationships, which is why women often appear to have more options. While it’s generally easier for women to find sexual partners, securing a committed relationship with a high-quality man is not as straightforward.

For men, on the other hand, while casual sex may be more challenging to obtain, the transition from a casual encounter to a long-term relationship isn’t as steep a climb. If a man is successful in securing casual sex, he often has a better chance of converting those encounters into something more serious.

 

[hypernormie]

The system needs a defined goal, ours lacks that which is why it has been vulnerable to degeneracy

At a certain level of development their is no longer anything distracting people from the meaningless of their lives and so they indulge in endless pleasure as a means of distraction

What society needs is a new unifying religion that is built on rationality and progress

The current religion is gay race communism and that religion is destructive and unsustainable

Christianity used to fill this role but only incidentally, people eventually become smart enough not to buy into it but when they stop, they have nothing left to fill that void other than degeneracy

When everyone adopts this mindset there goes your society

Any religion built on rationality and progress will also automatically favor males

What has happened isn’t necessarily a bad thing but is an expected stumbling block in the development of advanced society

Society simply wasn’t ready for this level of abundance and freedom and the existing system and metaphysical framework to deal with it wasn’t robust enough

No one really could have predicted this (some philosophers did, most famously Neitzsche) so no one really is to blame but we see it for what it is now so if nothing is done about it then we are to blame

 

[Primalsplit]

The system needs a defined goal, ours lacks that which is why it has been vulnerable to degeneracy

At a certain level of development their is no longer anything distracting people from the meaningless of their lives and so they indulge in endless pleasure as a means of distraction

What society needs is a new unifying religion that is built on rationality and progress

The current religion is gay race communism and that religion is destructive and unsustainable

Christianity used to fill this role but only incidentally, people eventually become smart enough not to buy into it but when they stop, they have nothing left to fill that void other than degeneracy

When everyone adopts this mindset there goes your society

Any religion built on rationality and progress will also automatically favor males

What has happened isn’t necessarily a bad thing but is an expected stumbling block in the development of advanced society

Society simply wasn’t ready for this level of abundance and freedom and the existing system and metaphysical framework to deal with it wasn’t robust enough

No one really could have predicted this (some philosophers did, most famously Neitzsche) so no one really is to blame but we see it for what it is now so if nothing is done about it then we are to blame

The goal should be evolving into ubermen.

 

[hypernormie]

The goal should be evolving into ubermen.

Unironically…if you aren’t moving forward, you’re moving backward

 

[Primalsplit]

Unironically…if you aren’t moving forward, you’re moving backward

If you're not moving forward, you're moving into degeneracy; which is the fate of the last men.

 

[hypernormie]

If you're not moving forward, you're moving into degeneracy; which is the fate of the last men.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

View attachment 3144968

He was an incel. I prefer the philosophy of an intelligent man that was a slayer too. Camus for example.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

View attachment 3144968

He was an incel. I prefer the philosophy of an intelligent man that is a slayer too. Camus for example

 

[hypernormie]

He was an incel. I prefer the philosophy of an intelligent man that is a slayer too. Camus for example

Camus didn’t slay because of some superior life philosophy, he was considered rather handsome and being an intellectual was trendy in France at the time.

He became a celebrity figure of sorts which obviously gets you pussy.

Nietzsche’s situation was a tad different and I think he suffered from excessive sensitivity in romantic matters, not to mention his ill health. The degree to which this may have impacted the value of his philosophy is debatable.

 

[Primalsplit]

He was an incel. I prefer the philosophy of an intelligent man that was a slayer too. Camus for example.

Based take. But Camus doesn't look like a slayer at all.

 

[Primalsplit]

Camus didn’t slay because of some superior life philosophy, he was considered rather handsome and being an intellectual was trendy in France at the time.

He became a celebrity figure of sorts which obviously gets you pussy.

Nietzsche’s situation was a tad different and I think he suffered from excessive sensitivity in romantic matters, not to mention his ill health. The degree to which this may have impacted the value of his philosophy is debatable.

His mother and sister were extreme cunts.

 

[spark]

They do want equality.

they don't

women are royalty, men are subhumans

 

[hypernormie]

His mother and sister were extreme cunts.

You never know, I will say his lack of agency in that regard is concerning

However his philosophy was prescient regardless

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

Camus didn’t slay because of some superior life philosophy, he was considered rather handsome and being an intellectual was trendy in France at the time.

He became a celebrity figure of sorts which obviously gets you pussy.

Nietzsche’s situation was a tad different and I think he suffered from excessive sensitivity in romantic matters, not to mention his ill health. The degree to which this may have impacted the value of his philosophy is debatable.

He repeatedly betrayed his wife, driving her to the brink of suicide. To describe him as a good or moral person would be a stretch. Among his various justifications, he embraced the lifestyle of a European Casanova, viewing seduction as a way to confront the absurdity of existence.

Camus had a profound understanding of nihilism, recognizing absurdism as a more evolved perspective.

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

Based take. But Camus doesn't look like a slayer at all.

He doesn't look like a modern slayer, but he embraced the Casanova archetype and was a womanizer, despite being married.

 

[hypernormie]

He repeatedly betrayed his wife, driving her to the brink of suicide. To describe him as a good or moral person would be a stretch. Among his various justifications, he embraced the lifestyle of a European Casanova, viewing seduction as a way to confront the absurdity of existence.

Camus had a profound understanding of nihilism, recognizing absurdism as a more evolved perspective.

Absurdism isn’t more evolved, it’s looking at the abyss and being so awestruck you are left at a standstill

At the end of the day you either kill yourself or you get on with living

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

I disagree. Absurdism isn't about being stuck in awe of the abyss; it's about staring it down and choosing to live anyway. It’s not about freezing—it's about pushing forward, even when nothing makes sense. The choice isn't just between suicide or moving on; it's about embracing the absurd and living on your own terms.

It’s defiance in the face of the void, not a quest for purpose.

 

[hypernormie]

I disagree. Absurdism isn't about being stuck in awe of the abyss; it's about staring it down and choosing to live anyway. It’s not about freezing—it's about pushing forward, even when nothing makes sense. The choice isn't just between suicide or moving on; it's about embracing the absurd and living on your own terms.

It’s defiance in the face of the void, not a quest for purpose.

Then it is better described as a stepping stone rather than a philosophy.

Once you realize all is absurd and you choose to continue living, what value is left in absurdism?

You have chosen to exist and so must decide on what exactly you continue to exist for. Unless you propose we all descend into chaos and exist for anything at any point (something even absurdist don’t do because it goes so fundamentally against human nature,) there is no value in absurdism beyond the realization and internalization of the illusory nature of all value.

Man must have something to strive for or he ceases to exist. Society must have something to strive for or it ceases to exist. And even though all can be seen as absurd, I still exist and if I had to choose between absolute chaos or the semblance of order that is society, I choose the latter, and because of this choice I must give it meaning.