Women believing in "misandry" are worse than women believing in "transphobia"

submitted by censorshipment from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Nature itself hates cis men. Biologically speaking the female is the default, and the male is a modified version of the female designed solely to help her reproduce. As such, nature doesn't really care about the male any more than what he does for women and children. Men do not have the ability to cope with stress and emotions and are explosively angry and prone to depression due to how our brain is wired, and yet we're the ones expected to be stoic and never have any problems. We have productivity issues because our body is designed to rest as much as possible for hard labor. We are usually fairly stupid. And society also doesn't care about us. A woman can often get whatever she wants on a golden platter, and if that doesn't work she can just cry about it and you're a monster if you don't give in. While a man can go die in a war or suffer the worst torture imaginable--with lower pain tolerance, mind you, both mentally and physically--and no one will give a shit; in fact, he will be punished if he doesn't suffer, without complaint. Women can get away with almost anything with no consequences, even serious crimes, or if they do get in trouble it is barely a fraction of what men get for the same thing. Often they even hold a man responsible for a woman's actions, because how could you lock up a sweet innocent woman, blame this ugly man instead! Now repeat after me, "male privilege!".

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We are usually fairly stupid.

Men and women have the same average IQ, but the male IQ distribution is slightly flatter, so while more men are dribbling idiots, there are also more male geniuses.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

I've debunked this. Men are expected to pursue work and capitalize on their skills, whereas a dependent womanchild is socially acceptable. Seeing as it's extremely difficult to push yourself when not compelled to do so, women end up with more max potential but less motivation, and it evens out. I've seen how most of them chicken out and go "nope" when they see something they think looks even remotely hard, because most of them are used to being lazier and know they won't face any consequences if they don't perform. It's actually proven that women are generally more productive than men because men are designed to be alert and also rest more. Men pretty much discard mental abilities for strength and heightened coordination. And women can generally match or beat them in "male" skills like mental rotation of an object when given the confidence, but men still cannot even approach women in "female" skills. With this in mind I think it's amazing that women keep up with the men at all. So men are more likely to be geniuses but women have more ability to do so. And this matches my experience, there is one genius woman for every 10 genius men but she is usually more brilliant than half of them put together. And beyond that, the men are usually limited to STEM subjects while women can excel at both that and the more creative and artsy subjects.

Even if the above is not true, this still results in only a very, VERY few exceptional instances, and even then only in specific areas; everyone else is a colossal mess. The explanation supposedly is that since men are more disposable it's okay to screw 99% of them for these kinds of experiments. So unless you're in that 1% and like what you were gifted with, it's bad news for you.

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Regardless of what you claim here—have you considered that perhaps those tests are designed to measure those "capitalized" skills at the exclusion of equally important "soft" skills? You measure what you value, and that's where you find the extremes of your scale.

For any society to function continuously and survive, a mix of both (and more) kinds of skills are vital. Call it what you want: stability vs. risk, conservative vs. progressive, or any other axis you choose. You'll never convince me that the right answer is one at the exclusion of the other.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Regardless of what you claim here—have you considered that perhaps those tests are designed to measure those "capitalized" skills at the exclusion of equally important "soft" skills? You measure what you value, and that's where you find the extremes of your scale.

Yes I think that too, but most people would see that as deflecting so I avoided it.

For any society to function continuously and survive, a mix of both (and more) kinds of skills are vital. Call it what you want: stability vs. risk, conservative vs. progressive, or any other axis you choose. You'll never convince me that the right answer is one at the exclusion of the other.

The issue is that one is a mostly positive experience while the other is mostly miserable. There's a good utilitarian reason why men are miserable, they're disposable, and being angry makes you a better warrior and laborer. And there's also a good utilitarian reason why women are more positive, because they have to be able to nurture children and do more "soft" work. But it's completely unfair, I wish the work and play would be more equally divided and that men would be worth more than replaceable machines.