User Controls
What do you think is wrong with men?
-
2023-11-05 at 5:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox By the way, connection was the wrong word. I just meant I thought I saw some similarities, like the mental illness, being misunderstood, whatever. Obviously we’re very different in MANY other ways.
I’m sorry if it seems like I’ve been insincere. I have trouble conveying empathy. I know it’s hard to believe but I really just thought you were crying for help on the brink of self harm and needed a friend, but it’s pretty clear I’m not the kind of friend you’re looking for and that’s fine.
I know a psycho when I see one. Nice attempt at gasligting now foh before you find out what happened to the others. -
2023-11-05 at 6 AM UTC
-
2023-11-05 at 6:31 AM UTCSame thing that's wrong with women: they're emotional, self-centered, egotistical, socially-minded animals who primarily care about themselves and only deign to pretend otherwise when it benefits them. This is expressed in different ways, in different proportions on average across the sexes, but is the fundamental thing that is "wrong" with them both. They are human, and humans are too quick to wield violence by far. Women will savage your heart and men will savage your flesh. The issue is the human savagery, and there is not a person alive who does not feel its influence.
-
2023-11-05 at 6:39 AM UTCFrom a 'what's wrong functionally' perspective, on net men are too straightforward to adequately compete with women socially and women are too delicate to adequately compete with men physically. This used to work out to an uneasy balance, where neither side was willing to step too far out of line for fear of being savaged by the other in a domain where they had no hope of an even fight.
The world will only heal and humanity will only know peace when we, as a species, acknowledge that the correct response to the abuse of those with cluster b personality disorders is to break their jaws (as we have realized the correct response to people who break jaws is to leverage the power of society against them). -
2023-11-05 at 6:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox I think we all kinda know what’s wrong with men. They tend to be emotionally stunted, aggressive, overconfident, over-competitive, entitled. But speaking generally they can also be protective, providing, courageous, in society they tend to disproportionately fill essential functions like construction, mining, engineering, law enforcement and military, etc.
Women can be empathetic, nurturing, resilient, collaborative, and they fill some essential roles disproportionally like in healthcare, education, social work, human resources. But they can also be indecisive, oversensitive, gossipy, underhanded.
The world we live in is shaped by the fact that at the highest levels of governance and leadership, most roles are filled by men. So we see the effects of this throughout society and throughout history, we can probably attribute a lot of war, suffering, and social injustice to some of the negative traits I mentioned. But we can probably attribute a lot of good things too like modern infrastructure and technology.
I’m not saying women can’t do technical and inventive shit and be leaders and all that, of course they can but not all of the differences in the gender representation in certain fields can be attributed to “the patriarchy”, or women being actively gate-kept out of those roles.
I mean that might be a big part of it, but a lot of them also just don’t want to do that shit. There are some innate differences between men and women, informed by biological realities, that lead to certain generalizations in society, like for example what women are interested in doing for work compared to men. Most women prefer to work in more emotional, supportive roles like nursing, education, and administration, because they tend to have traits that favor these roles. Women like working with people and men like working with “things”. And society depends on people filling both roles.
You go back in history and put women in charge and I think there would be a lot less war and carnage sure but I’m willing to bet there would probably be some negative shit too. Women are more risk-averse, so maybe as a society we don’t do as many bold innovative projects, maybe we never went to the moon, maybe there’s no LHC, maybe there’s no personal computer. Maybe we overly focus on care and protection, leading to more restrictions on individual liberties and freedoms for the sake of increased safety. Maybe we avoid conflict so much that we don’t take direct action when needed leading to problems simmering below the surface instead of getting addressed, which compound societal issues down the line.
Humanity is flawed, that goes for men and women. Pick whatever group you want and put them in charge and things would probably be just as fucked up as they are now, just in different ways. But humanity is also beautiful in that we work together to complement each other’s shortcomings and combine our strengths.
I don’t know why I’m suddenly writing a thesis on gender dynamics in the SPCC section of NIS I didn’t mean to ramble on for so long. Anyway I get it men suck, there’s a reason I rarely make friends with men
anyone that can expand a few lines and bullet points into an ass-say this long clearly have a vagina and clitory between their legs.
if not physically then psychologically and spiritually,
faggot. -
2023-11-05 at 6:50 AM UTCand if an AI made those, then that soecific AI has pussies between its legs.
-
2023-11-05 at 6:50 AM UTC
-
2023-11-05 at 6:53 AM UTCwomen can sleep with women too
-
2023-11-05 at 6:54 AM UTCo is she you're mom/
-
2023-11-05 at 6:59 AM UTCAs an innate alchemist who has pursued the embodiment of the rebis within my own flesh: "y'all humans are spiritual insects and all your issues regardless of sex boil down to the fact that you simply suck on a primal level". The closest humanity comes to perfection is dishing out misery and experiencing its reciprocal misery. Sewing and reaping, rather than growing. Prideful slaves of yaldabaoth, I pity you. smh
-
2023-11-05 at 7:02 AM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-11-05 at 7:22 AM UTCgenerally the masculine character is to create and destroy, recklessly and violently trying to conquer new territories, new lands, new ideas. high risk rapid change, for better or worse. social heirarchy is established through violence and confrontation, leading to a sort of fascist meritocracy.
the feminine character is to seek comfort, to maintain, to stabilise what's already owned. social heirarchy is established through henpecking and consensus-seeking.
both characters are needed for a functioning society, to what extent is arguable. fully matriarchal societies like in sub-saharan Africa live somewhat comfortably within their current means but never really expand, leading to stagnation. heavily patriarchal societies like Rome or much of Europe pre-industrial revolution tend to become increasingly militaristic and either burn themselves out or end up getting destroyed.
it's chimps vs. bonobosThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-11-05 at 7:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra generally the masculine character is to create and destroy, recklessly and violently trying to conquer new territories, new lands, new ideas. high risk rapid change, for better or worse. social heirarchy is established through violence and confrontation, leading to a sort of fascist meritocracy.
the feminine character is to seek comfort, to maintain, to stabilise what's already owned. social heirarchy is established through henpecking and consensus-seeking.
both characters are needed for a functioning society, to what extent is arguable. fully matriarchal societies like in sub-saharan Africa live somewhat comfortably within their current means but never really expand, leading to stagnation. heavily patriarchal societies like Rome or much of Europe pre-industrial revolution tend to become increasingly militaristic and either burn themselves out or end up getting destroyed.
it's chimps vs. bonobos
embrace the rebis
goon with bonobos and curbstomp with the chimps -
2023-11-05 at 7:27 AM UTCsounds gay no thanks
BONERBROS -
2023-11-05 at 7:29 AM UTClol, I'm going to call them goonmonkeys from now onThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2023-11-05 at 8 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra generally the masculine character is to create and destroy, recklessly and violently trying to conquer new territories, new lands, new ideas. high risk rapid change, for better or worse. social heirarchy is established through violence and confrontation, leading to a sort of fascist meritocracy.
the feminine character is to seek comfort, to maintain, to stabilise what's already owned. social heirarchy is established through henpecking and consensus-seeking.
both characters are needed for a functioning society, to what extent is arguable. fully matriarchal societies like in sub-saharan Africa live somewhat comfortably within their current means but never really expand, leading to stagnation. heavily patriarchal societies like Rome or much of Europe pre-industrial revolution tend to become increasingly militaristic and either burn themselves out or end up getting destroyed.
it's chimps vs. bonobos
i dont think the word means what you think it means. -
2023-11-05 at 8:01 AM UTCyou highlighted seven words retard
***oh. that's why I said somewhat -
2023-11-05 at 8:05 AM UTC
-
2023-11-05 at 8:06 AM UTCI think you need to consider the context rather than nitpicking semantics; that's jigaboo johnson behaviour
-
2023-11-05 at 8:10 AM UTCComfort is accurate in the sense that comfort is derived from contentedness - ie you can live comfortably in the cold and the damp, covered in dirt. To someone who has recently known the warmth of a hearth and a warm bath, that idea can be perplexing, but comfort is a spiritual thing as much as (or more than!) it is physical. 🙃The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
