Women are supposed to be pious, pure, submissive and domestic.
But they have abandoned ALL of these gender roles categorically.
Why do we still have to be stoic providers and protectors, never expressing vulnerability or weakness?
Why do women get to abandon their gender roles and we don't?
thats what they want.... they want us to give up, this struggle has always been there
fuck this shit lol
I want my wife to be human not a sex slave
Because we allow it. Stop moping you fucking faggot.
>lol
>leaf
>always being a contrarian faggot
No one is saying to have a sex slave, but White girls are fucking repulsive because we collectively as White men allow it. We need to fuck them up financially, politically, physically, culturally etc.
>Why do we still have to be stoic
You're either born into it or you aren't, women are secondary
fag
marxist doctrine of atomization, they want to destroy every single tenet and cultural value you have so they can impose their new one onto you.
Fortunately this doesn't work, culture is a function of genetics and certain manifestations of culture come out of DNA grafts that are undeniable. Some of us listen to our unconscious and hear the echoes.
But a sex slave is the only thing the modern woman is
Just dont date the sluts .... If you allow women to be completely free you can tell more easily which one are degenerate. The good ones stand out and you pick one of them and wife her.
They all turn into sluts eventually.
Even if you manage to find a good girl in college and marry her, she's eventually going to end up in a job where she's surrounded by females who have a negative impact upon her sense of morals.
I don't know about pure, submissive and domestic. Maybe to some degree, yes.
But I know one thing, I am totally NOT attracted to women who try to be men, in sense of work/activities. e.g. army, truck drivers, martial arts. It's a straight turn off to me. I just hate women with such interests, or low self esteem, to compete with a man. Same reason I hate faggots with woman interests, like e.g. cooking.
The reason women having those traits seems foreign to you is because the feminist movement has moved women so far away from it that you don't see what they used to be like.
Here is an article about what was expected of women in the 19th century, before the feminist movement ruined them.
If you say there's only 2 genders today, you're treated like you're an archaic Christian religious zealot trying to convert everyone to your religion.
>the feminist movement has moved women so far away from it
Prove it.
>marxist doctrine of atomization
Iranian women are marrying later because of Karl Marx?
Is Marx also to blame for the increasing divorce rate in Pakistan?
>always being a contrarian faggot
you do realize the commonly held opinions on Sup Forums are incredibly unorthodox for the rest of the world, right?
The average woman is as attractive as an above average man
Human brains evolved to be so big that the pelvis can't reliably pass a fetus's head. Humans thus have a very high mortality rate in childbearing. This is what caused hypergamy.
Pic attached shows the rough curves for how men and women rate each other. The male curve shows a symmetric, normal distribution, but the female side shows an asymmetrical, positively skewed distribution, meaning that the average is higher than the median. This is not because women are dumb or delusional, but because that is how evolution has programmed them to be attracted to men. Asymmetric selection surfaces exist in other places.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Asymmetric selection and the evolution of extraordinary defences
>Asymmetric selection and the resulting skewed trait distributions bias equilibrium mean phenotypes away from fitness peaks, usually toward the flatter shoulder of the individual fitness surface. We apply this theory to explain a longstanding paradox in biology and medicine: the evolution of excessive defences against enemies. These so-called extraordinary defences can evolve in response to asymmetrical selection when marginal risks of insufficient defence exceed marginal costs of excessive defence. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks between population abundances and asymmetric selection further exaggerate these defences. Recognizing the effect of asymmetrical selection on evolutionary trajectories will improve the accuracy of predictions and suggest novel explanations for apparent sub-optimality.
Asymmetric selection occurs when the marginal risk exceeds the marginal cost. For women, this is in child-bearing.
A woman's individual fitness is damaged by pregnancy. She cannot run as fast, she cannot work as hard, she cannot fight as well, and she needs more calories - this applies to all species of mammals. For humans the chances of the pregnancy killing her are much higher.
We could not evolve wide enough hips to accommodate our skulls reliably because it would make our bipedal pelvis too unstable and make running difficult. For this reason, a pregnancy is very, very likely to kill a woman without the aid of modern medicine.
This is a case where the risk of carrying is a child is not proportional to the gains unless the child is better than an average child.
If an average woman attempts to have children with an average man and dies in the first attempt, then it was all for nothing.
If she dies in labor and the child grows up to be below average, then her one child has less of a chance of passing on her own genes than she did.
The reward, an individually and reproductively fit child, must be proportionately worth the high risk of ending your own line in the attempt. Therefore the opportunity cost of not reproducing with average men is less than the opportunity of reward with a more fit child. Women who did not adopt this strategy have been pruned from the evolutionary tree by their own pelvises.
Hence even though men and women follow a random, symmetric distribution in physical attractiveness, women have been selected to only choose from the top 19% of men, so the distribution is positively skewed.
Men have been selected to choose from average women, so the distribution is symmetric. Women who are too attractive damage their own reproductive fitness, just as women who are too unattractive.
They say 20% of men reproduced and 80% of women, but it was the bottom 10% of women and the top 10% of women who didn't reproduce, and the 78th %ile through the 98%ile of men who reproduced. Siddharta, Jesus, Alexander, Hitler - amazing, charismatic leaders whose incredible personal attractiveness and leadership skills removed their genes from the pool.
The OKCupid data looks suspiciously like +0σ women are going for men at the +1σ mark in order to make their risk of dying in childbirth worth the potential reward of a Chad baby.
-3σ = Megaincel
-2σ = Incel
-1σ = Virgin
0σ = Beta
+1σ = Chad
+2σ = Megachad
+3σ = Ultrachad
-3σ = Hambeast
-2σ = Twobagger
-1σ = Bagger
0σ = Jane
+1σ = Stacy
+2σ = Megastacy
+3σ = Ultrastacy
Chad is programmed to be willing to settle with Jane even though he feels equal to Stacy and pines over her, but he's a real Janeslayer. Jane is programmed to go after Chad because reproducing isn't worth it if it isn't Chad's.
A 50%ile woman is programmed by evolution to see an 84%ile man as her equal, but a 50%ile man is programmed to see her as his equal, and an 84%ile man sees an 84%ile woman as his equal.
If you want an above average woman to be interested in you, you have to be above the average above average guy.
I want you to pity Stacy. The typical "Stacy" that beta orbiters whine about is actually going to be an average girl. The 50%ile Jane views 50%ile betas like they view 16%ile baggers. That's pretty far beneath them.
An 84%ile Stacy only wants +2σ guys, so she wants the 97.7%ile. Evolution has programmed her to do that. Only 2.3% of guys are acceptable to her, and jealous 50%ers sabotage her at every turn. It's better to be average.
Megachad is a roastie. Why? Because 84% of women are itching in their pants to be fucked by him, just as 84% of men are willing to go to bed with a 50%ile woman, even if 51-84%iles feel like it's settling. But he knows he's better than 97.7% of women and wants one like him, but he's willing to settle for 84%ile Stacy.
Women are such entitled idiots who are terrified of being hit on because even 5's get hit on by 84% of men, just as Megachad gets hit on by 84% of women, so he's a total female and doesn't put out for those lecherous whores. Why are women such pigs?
Anyways men who are 8's settle for women who are 5's.
Because feminism at it's core is all about women emancipating themselves from their responsibilities, while still demanding men uphold theirs. This is what happens when you let overgrown children (i.e women) get their way.
Women have abandoned their roles and bear that responsibility, but men are almost just as bad.
I'll give you three guesses
1. Birth control.
2. Antibiotics.
3. The Jews
quints don't lie. Do what you want to do, fuck what society says, caring is what cucks do.
Male gender roles were reinforced by the promise of a positive male identity withing a man's community. That positive male identity has been revoked as an incentive and yet you wonder why guys don't want to be the happy little drones they used to be?
Married. My wife is a stay at home mom. She cooks and cleans...mind you she isn't obedient. She bitches at me 50% of the time. She is the ruler of the household and I am the breadwinner. A fair trade off.
A
FUCKING
LEAF
Hurrhurr
>Fortunately this doesn't work, culture is a function of genetics and certain manifestations of culture come out of DNA grafts that are undeniable
Billions of Africans will fix this.
>supporting a bitchy cunt
Cuck
u
c
k
>Why do women get to abandon their gender roles and we don't?
You already have.
(You)
Uggghhh nghhhh thanks I needed that.
>I want my wife to be a human
>being a massive biocuck
Why settle when you can have perfection?