Unable to load image
/h/toomanyxchromosomes
gigachad_brony they/them that's how you get the hobo stole my baby story  10mo ago (text post) 403 thread views #263738
Reported by:

Why are women incapable of sympathizing with men?

I know 90% of people irrespective of gender are losers.

However, it feels like women are completely incapable of sympathizing with even the remaining 10% of men, and where they do sympathize, they excuse behaviors in the 10% that they consider unacceptable social evils in all other men? Why do women do this? Why do they discourage the same behaviors in 90% of men that they accept and celebrate in the remaining 10%?

Somebody explain as if You are talking to an neurodivergent who only thinks in black and white literal statements.

21
New Old Top Bottom Controversial Random
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

Because in general women hate men as much as men hate women.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think you'll find this passage enlightening on the simplified turbo foid view on the good man bad man dichotomy and why foids tolerate bad behavior from some man and not others

A central element of r*pe as a terrorist institution, Card claims, is a protection racket in which men, as the group both creating the danger and proposing to deliver women from it, dole out protection—sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent, often illusory—in exchange for women's service, loyalty, and compliance. In this system, “good” men protect virtuous and deserving women from “bad” men, and part of what defines a woman as deserving protection is her conformity to rules of patriarchal femininity. Women who are not offered protection, or who decline it when offered, are then frequently blamed for being r*ped. Furthermore, as Card points out, the rules of the institution often grant “protectors”—whether husbands, boyfriends, or pimps—sexual access to the woman or women whom they protect, so that nothing they do to those women is taken to count as r*pe. The institution thus requires a woman to give up her sexual autonomy in relation to one man, in order to gain his (conditional and unreliable) “protection” from other men.

Many feminists contend that even as the institution of r*pe systematically disadvantages women, it benefits men as a class by underwriting beliefs about the naturalness of male dominance, defining women of certain kinds or in certain circumstances as “fair game,” rendering women dependent on and thus beholden to men for protection, and giving men a competitive advantage by restricting women's freedom of action and movement.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-r*pe/

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This makes a surprisingly good amount of sense.

What is your opinion on the statement you shared?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This makes a surprisingly good amount of sense.

Ah now I understand why you don't know why women can't sympathize with men: you're r-slurred. And gullible.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How is what was written incorrect?

It matches for the mindset of part of the strata of lower income unemployed men in 3rd world countries.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Feminist thought is about applying the financial dynamic between literal pimps and homeless prostitutes to the mentality of average middle class American men without acknowledging any differences, nuance or applying critical thought.

"dole out protection—sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent, often illusory—in exchange for women's service, loyalty, and compliance"

Only sociopaths think that's why they marry/date someone

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm pretty sure that @gigachad_brony is Indian though, thirdies have very different gender dynamics

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cuck is a western concept.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But the average man really does behave this way?

You are using the "I like kitten pictures on instagram I am good man." Fallacy.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm starting to think you aren't male

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

>dole out protection

It's worth debating. While there is a kernel of truth in there, it's not a protection racket. Other men (and nature) can be scary and violent. Men get victimized even more from violent men than women.

The implicit deal is that a man will protect a woman (with his life if need be). This is not a flaw of men: A rational actor would always shirk on this "responsibility". That many do anyway is very heroic and proof that this isn't a malicious game our gender plays to eeke out an advantage.

I'm with feminists on this one. If I could exterminate the top 10% violent men (without putting my nation at risk of invasion, so I'm only talking about the maladaptive ones), I'd get rid of them without hesitation.

@gigachad_brony

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(without putting my nation at risk of invasion, so I'm only talking about the maladaptive ones)

Those are the men protecting the nation

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

Neighbor this shit doesn't make any sense. It's bpd women's r-slurred application of Marxist base/superstructure dynamics to s*x relations instead of economic class. It's premised upon one leap of logic after another. From the beginning it relies upon the idea of a gestalt male consciousness.

The fewer women on this site the better :pepereegun:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From the beginning it relies upon the idea of a gestalt male consciousness.

Neighbor this whole fricking thread is predicated on the idea that women are supposed to feel sympathy for M.E.N. writ large as some singular collective entity that might conceivably merit sympathy. Do you sympathize with UN delegates? With the Appalachian hill toad? With motorcyclists? With the mentally handicapped?

If there's no male gestalt than the entire question is incoherent. There's no shame in responding to an inquiry stipulating to its premises.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fair fair given the thread

With the mentally handicapped?

:marseymespecial:

I refuse to engage with any feminist writing with intellectual curiosity or honesty because that's for strags. :marseycool2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From the beginning it relies upon the idea of a gestalt male consciousness.

Women like feeling safe and protected.

@JollyJihad:

This premise is based upon on leap of logic after another. From the beginning it relies upon the idea of a gestalt female consciousness.

:soyjakcobson:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Women like feeling safe and protected.

This isn't the argument being made, and I'm not following what you possibly found interesting in that commentary.

Safety being a motivating desire isn't an interesting observation because it's true of most animals on Earth male or female. It's arguing that men collectively and knowingly abuse this desire by both posing as the threat and the solution. It implicates group agency instead of individual action and transfers guilt to all men regardless of their role as threat, protector, or uninvolved. It's typical of feminist rhetoric in that it provides a nonsensical and self-indulgent explanation for a relatively uncontroversial observation.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It implicates group agency instead of individual action and transfers guilt to all men

Literally this thread asks why I'm not sympathetic to all the men. I swear on Gloria Steinem's life if I had the grip strength to choke you to death for this lazy pseudointellectual jiggery-pokery you are engaging in, I would do it in a second.

:#marseychoke:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was replying to @gigachad_brony, not you, and trying to explain to him why agreeing with feminist takes in any form makes him a gay r-slur. However I do agree the language I used in my reply is overly verbose and straggy

I'm also glad you recognize your inferior grip strength :marseypoint: :!marseydeathpose:

The whole premise is r-slurred. I don't know why any man would expect women collectively to sympathize with the plight of low value men. I certainly don't care about the daily struggles of fat, ugly women.

:marseysmirk2: :!marseytradmad: young Gloria Steinem :marseywood:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

It's typical of feminis... uncontroversial observ

True

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It implicates...guilt to all men regardless of their role as threat

Agree. Wary of all men. Punish only the criminals.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's arguing that men collectively and knowingly abuse this desire

Just because you don't name it doesn't mean its not a real phenomena

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All moids share a male feminist conciousness, its literally ( :marseywomanmoment: ) science as you can see.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

An interesting data point that makes me vaguely SIMPathetic to this view is that it this view essentially became law with the Algerian family code of 1984 which was passed by Algerian socialists without any public debate. The law meant that foids couldn't marry without being approved by a moid family member, could be divorced by a moid without receiving any financial compensation while she effectively couldn't divorce the moid for any reason. The house is automatically awarded to the husband and required duty of obedience to her husband. This caused Algerian streets to be flooded with homeless women, often carrying children, while there was an outpouring of Islamist sexual violence against foids during the Algerian civil war.

https://arena.org.au/algerias-sexist-family-code-is-long-overdue-for-reform/ (article is from wingcucks but correct on the facts)

There were also many Algerian revolutionaries which married foids during the independence war in the mountains using the law to divorce their foids to get younger ones according to Both Right and Left Handed: Arab Women Talk About Their Lives by Bouthaina Shaaban though she's of debatable trust and Unbowed: An Algerian Woman Confronts Islamic Fundamentalism by Khalida Messaoudi though she's currently in jail for corruption so maybe :marseywise:

The law was lightened in 2005 though.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Men are surprisingly disappointing in this aspect.

They shout about honor and dignity 100x louder than the groups ability to follow through if they were given the reins freely.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cool write up, but why would I ever care about the rights of Algerian women? :stoning:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because there is a lot of emotion and risk involved in loving/trusting/caring about another person and when that goes south people (men and women) tend to take it very personally and are led to hold onto resentments towards not just the person who has done the hurting, but their entire group.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But I have been cucked by many women and I still don't hate women?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have been cucked by many women

Unsurprising

I still don't hate women?

You'll get there some day champ!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hopefully.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

zoz

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

zle

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

zozzle

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.