/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.19647637]

How hard is it to find genuine companionship in the modern era?

[Anonymous No.19647703]

>>19647637

All women are whores

[Anonymous No.19647907]

>>19647637
They look they suck the blood out of PoC. They should be put in a prison camp.

[Anonymous No.19647944]

>>19647637
It’s going to get harder and harder to find a woman who hasn’t been pounded into the headboard by a greasy nigger at this point. So just take one and have a white baby.

[Anonymous No.19647975]

>>19647637
ez. prostitute websites are numerous.

[Anonymous No.19648008]

"genuine" companionship is understanding that all interactions are a form of transaction and unconditional romantic love as a concept did not exist until modern times

a dude is as useful as his strength and wealth

[Anonymous No.19648036]

Get a dog
/thread

[Anonymous No.19648075]

>>19648008

Think about how absurd most romantic movies are anyway (even kid's cartoons). It's usually about some guy groveling for, or serving, or saving a woman who's sitting there doing nothing. Men aspire to be the simp and women aspire to be catered to, it's pretty fucked.

[Anonymous No.19648149]

>>19648075
IDK how I grew up so differently with animuh than the rest of the Western world. I literally disliked sexuality and idealized primarily platonic and asexual family types of love. And only many years later could I feel that I will have proven myself that I actually like this girl I do. And that having gentle romantic intercourse wouldn't be the end of the world. But even then it would be just an afterthought. I don't even understand how a person can consider to "replace" a girl, since I'd just like her as positive being that doesn't have to be perfect or be my perfect fit, as long as the general direction is right. How can you expect to have a lasting relationship if this isn't your approach?

Am I crazy or is everyone else?

[Anonymous No.19648173]

>>19648149
*Just for clarification: I don't actually have a girlfriend, but this would be my view on it.

[Anonymous No.19648177]

>>19648173
don't worry bud, we can tell

[Anonymous No.19648193]

>>19648036
This, unironically. Dogs are better investments than gfs.

[Anonymous No.19648227]

>>19648075
You all sound like a bunch of low T fags.
>Men aspire to be the simp and women aspire to be catered to, it's pretty fucked.
Thats how it should be, soi boi. Men produce, women consume.

Natural human society is matriarchal. Patriarchy is a myth. Men are bestowed with great strength and stamina to bring home the bread. Women take a man's production and turn it into family.

A woman's value is innate and only really connected to her looks and personality. That's because women are physically weak and dependent on men. A man's value is much more complicated and changeable. Men can fall and rise in social standing.

That is the difference. Society depends upon men performing to the highest standards. Men go to the arena of life and compete for the affections of women. That's how its always been and how it should be.

THATS HOW IT IS FAGGOTS.

[Anonymous No.19648242]

>>19648227

Wrong. Men are leaders, not servants. Women are hardcoded to be followers, how could that not be terribly obvious?

[Anonymous No.19648311]

>>19648242
>Men are leaders, not servants.
Wrong. You are looking at this purely from a surface level view. In reality, men are the ones that serve women. Men literally give their life force to women in the act of sex.

Though men do lead civically, in reality, the real rulers are women, always have been, always will be. Because men are either competing for status, or maintaining their status. Though men may lead in a civic sense, behind closed doors (where it counts), women are leading the men.

There is a saying, "happy wife, happy life". Theres no saying for "happy man." Maybe you're too young to understand.

[Anonymous No.19648332]

>>19648242
this guy gets it and the anon he's responding to is coping with being a fucking simp. bottom line.

[Anonymous No.19648359]

>>19648242
Let me put it to you this way, men serve through leading. Men do the hard work so women may enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Ever see the wife of a rich man look haggard and beat up? Of course not. A rich and powerful man spoils his wife. Women absorb a man's production. Men service women through leadership.

This is why it was very much socially acceptable and encouraged for men to open doors for women. Its not men submitting to women, its displaying competence to women through service.

[Anonymous No.19648381]

>>19648332
No he doesn't, both of you sound like absolute whiney little cucks. You don't get it, not at all

[Anonymous No.19648399]

>>19648311

You misunderstood me. I never said men can't be providers or protectors, I said they aren't SERVANTS. THEY dictate the terms of the relationship, not the woman. It isn't a situation of a woman making a list of demands and expectations and a man fulfilling them, he should know what is and isn't appropriate and do his duty. You're still simping and not getting the picture and what's worse you're trying to pretend like I don't understand how to be the patriarch, I was raised by one and get it perfectly well.

Prior to monogamy, humanity's natural state was one man to 2 or more women. Simps like you were trash who got thrown on the front line of the warrior squad brah, sorry to break it to you.

[Anonymous No.19648402]

>>19648359
This. Men serve through leadership. You have to earn your woman you fucking cucks not sit around on biz bitching about how you shouldnt have to work for it. Fags

[Anonymous No.19648453]

Just bee yourself :-)

[Anonymous No.19648463]

>>19648399
> I said they aren't SERVANTS.
I never said they are servants. Men serve through leadership. They do the heavy lifting.
>THEY dictate the terms of the relationship, not the woman.
No, the woman dictates the terms. Men are the selectees. Women are the selectors. Women have always been the gateway to sex. Women select the best and fittest men to procreate with. It's very simple. Simp.
> You're still simping and not getting the picture
No, you are the one that still simping, bitching about how women get to sit around and "do nothing" and how men have to supplicate. It's a cucks' argument.
> I was raised by one and get it perfectly well.
The fact that you have to say this shows that you clearly werent. Lul.
>Prior to monogamy, humanity's natural state was one man to 2 or more women.
Another jewish lie.
>Simps like you were trash who got thrown on the front line
You are weak and you sound weak.

[Anonymous No.19648470]

>>19648227
>ignores the vast majority of human history where men took whatever women they wanted, "rape" did not exist as a concept and if a strong man took you as a woman, you were probably happy about it.

[Anonymous No.19648505]

>>19648463

You're plainly absurd. Trying to pretend like I'm the "weak" and "simp" one when you're the dumbshit saying humans are matriarchal and men exist to serve women. Go ahead and see how that works out with your horrid roastie wife anon, it will be a lovely divorce I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.19648522]

>>19648470
>Vast majority of human history
And I'm just supposed to believe those jewish archaeologists or historians?
>if a strong man took you as a woman, you were probably happy about it.
Thanks for proving my point. You have to be strong in order to claim a woman. That is natural selection in action.

[Anonymous No.19648550]

>>19648522
>>Vast majority of human history
>And I'm just supposed to believe those jewish archaeologists or historians?
true that, who the fuck knows WHAT we were like past 8000 years ago...

[Anonymous No.19648571]

>>19648505
I am simply stating what is natural. It is nature in action.

In order for you to build a family, a woman cares for the children, while a man brings home the bread. That is man's natural state. Its literally what was given to us by nature.

Your idea of the barbaric man like >>19648470
grabbing a woman and raping her is juvenile and childish. In civilization, and even in pre civilization, men have competed for women's affections by being the strongest.

Men literally exist to serve women. A woman takes your produce, your production, and builds a family with it. That is literally service. A man provides provision and protection to women. A man is expected to both provide food and protection from invaders if necessary.

That is indeed service - service through leadership.

A weak man is angry at this and gets angry at people that point this out, and makes absurd claims like >>19648470 above.

This is simply how nature works. A man is the stallion and the woman is the rider.

[Anonymous No.19648611]

I fell for the online dating meme found some decent girls, planned a date, then they deleted me randomly now I am just going to take ketamine and watch anime

[Anonymous No.19648629]

>>19648571

Just because you are doing things for your woman doesn't mean you're her servant, or that she is the leader or matriarch. You also work, toil, provide for, and protect your child, is that your leader as well? No. It's something you care about. A woman is similar.

You are still the leader. She does things for you too. Don't get it twisted just because a man has to put work into a relationship.

[Anonymous No.19648722]

>>19648227

You are sort of right. Women no longer keep up their end of the bargain though. I suppose men don't either because most are weak physicall and/or mentally. Men want to find a woman they can submit to but most aren't worthy now and will fuck up your children and lack natural femininity. You still need to lead them but women have incredible skills when it comes to networking with others, disarming them, and manipulating desires of others to retain power for their mate beyond physical strength. Women like to be used or be useful, its your job as a man to to do so within their strengths which is generally social aspects.

[Anonymous No.19648729]

>>19648571
>Men literally exist to serve women.
Not really true in a genuine sense. They both work and serve each other. The man has always been the leader and the woman under him. You seem to be trying to portray this relationship as the man being servile, but throughout history women have mostly been subject to the man. You are trying to persuade the other guy with semantics.
>A woman takes your produce, your production, and builds a family with it. That is literally service. A man provides provision and protection to women. A man is expected to both provide food and protection from invaders if necessary.
You can say the same thing of the service a women is doing for the man. Women keep the home in order, so that it is nice when the man comes home. Women spend time raising the kids for the man, saving that time for men to do other things. Women primp themselves and make themselves pretty for men. Women naturally gravitate to men displaying leadership, and are happy to be led.

You are presenting things in a particular angle that favors your argument, but is not true as a whole.

[Anonymous No.19648740]

>>19648629
>doesn't mean you're her servant
I never said that. I said men serve through leadership. You are taking this literally.
>she is the leader or matriarch.
Human society is matriarchal. Men compete for women. Women are more important than men.

If the whole village population of men die, yet only 1 survives, the village can still survive. That one man can impregnate many women.

If the reverse happens, then the village collapses. It is nature in action.

>You also work, toil, provide for, and protect your child,
Irrelevant to the discussion.
>Don't get it twisted just because a man has to put work into a relationship.
Men are "leaders" in the sense that they do the heavy lifting for the relationship. Men till the land, they bring home the bread, and provide protection and even pleasure. Men do nearly all the provisioning for women.

This is why men are built to do literally everything except give birth and deal with children.

Women are the opposite. See yinyang in action. Women are specialized. They need support for 95% of life's activities.
>You are still the leader.
Men are leaders in the practical sense, but in reality, when push comes to shove - everything a man does, he pretty much does to please women.

"Happy wife, happy life"

There is no such saying for men.

[Anonymous No.19648847]

>>19648729
>You seem to be trying to portray this relationship as the man being servile, but throughout history women have mostly been subject to the man.
In a political sense, women have been subject to man. Yes. But even then, men have served women by providing for them. Men are the ones that fought in wars, men were the ones that brought home food, men were the ones that provided entertainment, even.

>You are trying to persuade the other guy with semantics.
Actually its reverse, because he keeps talking about men being servants. Men are not *servants* they are simply providers. Men serve through providing leadership. However, all of this is ultimately for the woman.

A man's energy literally goes to a woman. A woman takes a man's production and turns it into a family. This is not even up for debate. It's nature.

> Women keep the home in order, so that it is nice when the man comes home.
Yes, women do give back. That's the whole yin and yang. HOWEVER....

Men are expected to do more. This is why a man's social standing can rise and fall in rank, whereas a woman's standing is more fixated. Do you understand now? There is nearly no limit to the height's a man can achieve. Whereas women are limited to their looks and personality.

Thus, a woman can provide certain things, relatively intangible (children, comfortable home, etc). Whereas men can and should provide the tangible things that are obtained through the arena of life (money, wealth, power)

[Anonymous No.19648891]

>>19648847
>A man's energy literally goes to a woman. A woman takes a man's production and turns it into a family. This is not even up for debate. It's nature.

That isn't nature though...that is civilized society through patriarchy that allowed beta's to get family through marriage. Prior to that Alpha's fucked the female and then left. Especially in the animal kingdom outside of humans the male rarely sticks around and produces anything other than the sperm.

[Anonymous No.19648908]

>>19648740
>"Happy wife, happy life"
>There is no such saying for men.
That is the second time you have used that to bolster your argument. Do you base your understanding of most of life's most important issues on old memes? I only hear women say that shit usually, now more and more soibois are as well. That guy above is right, you are a simp. I so not disagree with the fundamental understanding of the role of man and women in your explanations, only with your addition that "throughout all of human history we have lived in a matriarchy". You are basically saying everything men do ultimately is for women. You are admitting that you have made the proverbial "woman" (not your individual woman) your god. I have met many men who say the same and before they were married, getting laid was the most important thing in the world for them. What separates man from beast is our ability to abstain from our base instincts, and making woman your god is definitely one of those instincts.

[Anonymous No.19648935]

>>19648740

>Human society is matriarchal. Men compete for women. Women are more important than men.

That is not what "matriarchy" means. Women are innately important for their uteruses, yes, but men are still on top of the food chain, it's just higher variance. Bottom tier men are scum and top tier men are champions and leaders of the tribe. They dictate everything. Patriarchy.

> Irrelevant to the discussion.

No it isn't. The exact justification you're using for pushing the "women are the leaders" thing can be applied to children as well. Defenseless but necessary, valuable, coveted assets.

> "Happy wife, happy life"

That is a simp saying. Who the fuck aspires to be their wife's period rag? Lmao

[Anonymous No.19648947]

>>19648847
>Thus, a woman can provide certain things, relatively intangible (children, comfortable home, etc). Whereas men can and should provide the tangible things that are obtained through the arena of life (money, wealth, power)
I agree with this.

[Anonymous No.19648980]

>>19648891
>Prior to that Alpha's fucked the female and then left.
So, I'm assuming in this magical time where "Alphas" fucked the female and then left, what happened to the child? How did the female provide for the child?

If a man fucks a female and then leaves, hes not necessarily an alpha. A real alpha male is someone who raises a family. Because you are *successfully* passing on your genes.

You dont successfully pass on your genes just by fucking a woman and leaving. How does she provide for her child without you?

>Especially in the animal kingdom outside of humans the male rarely sticks around and produces anything other than the sperm.
Humans arent like other animals. We are a sexually dimorphic species. Meaning that men and women are not only different, but the exact opposite. If you think humans in the early days were like wild animals running around like madmen, then we wouldnt be human, would we? And we even wouldnt be around to talk, because the baby would die because it needs the produce and protection of a man.

>civilized society through patriarchy
Civilized society is our genes expressed. And its not through patriarchy, it has always been a matriarchy (until now, now its just rule by the State)

[Anonymous No.19649008]

>>19648008
Literally only men will ever understand this though. There's absolutely zero women in the west that have this objectivist line of thinking

[Anonymous No.19649013]

>>19647637

The fact that you faggots are spending this much energy talking about this, shows that you don't know how simple and basic it is to have whatever you want to have with women.

[Anonymous No.19649062]

>>19649008

Women understand it, on a very subconscious and primal level. They might act like they're super romantic but when you're with one you'll notice she expects things from you like a checklist, it's all very orderly and practical in her deep womanhead.

[Anonymous No.19649127]

>>19647944
You should stop browsing that much 4channel.
Pic very related.

[Anonymous No.19649192]

>>19649062

Literally none of my girlfriends have ever been like this. Would kind of sociopathic girls are you dating?

[Anonymous No.19649216]

>>19649192

That's interesting. Its the most common complaint I hear about my friend's girlfriends, being nitpicky and needlessly demanding. Have you heard of a henpecked husband?

[Anonymous No.19649229]

>>19648311
This is the lowest test, plebbit spaced SIMP post I've read in a while. Imagine looking back on all the great leaders, commanders, kings, and inventors (including volcels like Newton) and contributing all accomplishment to a hidden and whimsical notion of "le epic hidden stronk womenz behind the scenes xD"
>But muh competition

Competition for women is considered the absolute beginning phase of any major endeavor. Take lifting; many, if not most men begin lifting for pussy. But any lifter and athlete worth his mettle evolves and proceeds to push past plateaus, personal limits, and reach a higher strength, to push himself, shunning the idea that women are a worthy target and acknowledging that there are so many more layers of self improvement. Congrats on being stuck at phase 1 of motivation and discipline, beta.

[Anonymous No.19649233]

>>19648935
>top tier men are champions and leaders of the tribe. They dictate everything. Patriarchy.
Lol, no. You are just looking at things at the surface level. Even the man at the top of the food chain still provides resources to the women.

You are wrongfully assuming that through most of human history It was Conan the Barbarian shit and you had this king barbarian with women slaves tied up in the back. Its childish and ludicrous fairy tales, because nearly all of recorded civilization has men competing for the affection of women.

>thing can be applied to children as well.
No, we are talking about the relationship between a man and a woman. It's irrelevant - you're just grasping at straws.

>Who the fuck aspires to be their wife's period rag?
You are again acting weak. Take a look at the wives of powerful men. They are spoiled and well taken care of. What kind of powerful man has a haggard, stressed out looking wife? You have alot to learn.

[Anonymous No.19649241]

>>19647637
Is she that british porn star? Love that chick

[Anonymous No.19649279]

>>19649229
>NO WAY! MEN ARE STRONG FOR THE SAKE OF IT!
>BEING STRONG IS BETA!!!!!
>I'M STRONG BECAUSE I LIFT FOR THE SAKE OF IT!

[Anonymous No.19649309]

I think people are also discounting the fact that only one person is generally "in love" in a relationship at a time. There might be fleeting moments few and far between where both people have feelings of "love" but as a whole the person who holds more power in the relationship is the one who tends to receive unconditional love from the other.

Generally the relationships that last the longests are when the woman is constantly trying to pull attention from the guy and "loves/admires" him, while the man just more or less is content with her, but isn't head over heels. If its the other way around the woman eventually leaves.

[Anonymous No.19649373]

>>19648311
I globally agree with what you say, but in late stage Capitalism, everything is blurred. In late stage Capitalism, you don't even need to provide, or have social standing, but look like the retard in your pic.
The smartest men are often not the most attractive, and are sometime even regarded as freaks.
Today, women are brainwashed by TV, and want a guy who looks, dress and behave like the super retards in a hip-hop music clip.
Today, fashionable and steroids gym rats have more success than a smart and creative engineer. Women will attach more importance to brand clothes, stupid cultural references than inherent qualities like stamina, intelligence, or even combat strength.
Capitalism is probably disgenic.

[Anonymous No.19649392]

>>19649279
Your soijack collection won't remedy the fact that you've revealed yourself as an extremely weak person for doing things for the sake of pussy. Keep it Untermensch

[Anonymous No.19649398]

>>19649229
What's ironic is this is the lowest test post Ive ever read. Fucking triggered.

THROUGHOUT ALL OF HISTORY MEN COMPETED FOR WOMEN.

Get your gay self help shit outta here. In 2020 no one is buying it. Fucking faggot kys. Monk mode my ass dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.19649407]

>>19649229

This. Self improvement often starts for easier entry into worldly pleasures and evolves into simply forging yourself into a better man than you were the day before. People who self improve for anything other than themselves eventually stop or fail to do so better than men who do it for themsevles

[Anonymous No.19649430]

>>19649233
>Lol, no. You are just looking at things at the surface level. Even the man at the top of the food chain still provides resources to the women.

On the contrary, that is you. You are the one making stupid, rudimentary reductions like "men provide for women, so women rule." That is dumb.

> You are wrongfully assuming that through most of human history It was Conan the Barbarian shit and you had this king barbarian with women slaves tied up in the back. Its childish and ludicrous fairy tales, because nearly all of recorded civilization has men competing for the affection of women.

Holy fuck dude... yes, Kings and Emperors had literally HUNDREDS of concubines, and they themselves were merely a step up from warlords who had their own harems. That is literally how humans work. Human genetic history lists only 40% of men as ever having reproduced and 80% of women as having done so, we are quite literally a patriarchial, polygamous, men at the top species. This is like 2nd grade shit.

> No, we are talking about the relationship between a man and a woman. It's irrelevant - you're just grasping at straws.

No, you just misunderstand the fact that it puts a hole in your entire "men do things for women so women are the leaders" tripe.

> You are again acting weak. Take a look at the wives of powerful men. They are spoiled and well taken care of. What kind of powerful man has a haggard, stressed out looking wife? You have alot to learn.

I didn't say anything about any of that. I can't believe I'm arguing with some henpecked coping fag who thinks the world is matriarchal just because his dumbshit household is.

[Anonymous No.19649469]

>>19649392
>>19649407
>Muh self improvement
>Muh I do it for myself
Men do shit for the sake of pussy whether they know it or not. Its nature. You can't fight it. Unless you cut your balls off and drain yourself of testosterone.

You can try to fool yourself by telling yourself "I lift to stay healthy and fit" but your drive from nature is always to gather an abundance of strength, vitality, and power as a man.

You just revealed to be immature and weak to scream "you're doing it for the sake of pussy!" Idiot, men are doing it for the sake of pussy whether they know it or not. Faggot.

I'm just not deluding myself and repeating the same bullshit you read in the Game or whatever PUA book is popular for gullible morons like you nowadays.

[Anonymous No.19649498]

>>19648311
You sound like a skinnyfat cuck ngl

[Anonymous No.19649501]

>>19649398
>Reddit space
>Unironically using "triggered"
Keep chasing tail like every thirsty beta does, while every noteworthy and successful person lets the pussy come to them or meets their significant other along the way. You hate me because I'm holding a mirror in front of you exposing your recessed chin and feeble, pathetic motivations in life.

[Anonymous No.19649534]

>>19647637
I had a wife but she decided to kill herself rather than be with me

[Anonymous No.19649566]

>>19649469
Dude you have some serious personal issues to work out. I don't get why you are insulting and being retarded? You suffer from solipsism or massive projection a bit here imo. Its possible people have other motivations than what yours are. A lot of ancient men practiced Stoicism and did things for the sake of it or duty and not for women. Imposing things on yourself you don't want to necessarily do builds character.

It sounds like you are the one who reads those things I kind of doubt they tell you to build character, don't they just tell you to trick women more or less?

[Anonymous No.19649587]

>>19649430
>On the contrary
>"No, its you!"
It's not "reductionist" I am simply telling you how nature works.
>we are quite literally a patriarchial, polygamous, men at the top species. This is like 2nd grade shit.
And those women had to be provided for. I am always going to win this, because the flow of provision is this:

Men to women

Men provide resources to women

women take those resources and make a family

Thus, it is matariachal. Every. Single. Time.

You are looking at things at a surface level. Its the queens that are the rulers. They take the energy, the produce of a man, and make a family of it. The only difference between then and now, is that only a small percentage of the top men were able to reproduce with women.

It was *never* a patriarachy. The vast majority of men died in wars. Women did not fight in war. How is that a patriarchy if men are the ones dying in wars? Fucking logic man.

>No, you just misunderstand the fact
I didn't misunderstand anything. You are just retarded that you keep bringing up this irrelevant fact. it's not relevant to the discussion retard.

>I didn't say anything about any of that.
Quote "Who aspires to be their wife's period rag"? As if men are the ones to be catered to. Fuck off with that shit.

[Anonymous No.19649650]

>>19649566
>I dont like your logic, so you have serious personal issues!
>Its possible people have other motivations than what yours are.
Did you read what I said? I am simply stating what is happening in nature. I dont have any motivations other than stating the truth. But ironically, it is others that are projecting their insecurity. About how they are tough that they only "lift for themselves" and other gay fucking shit. Did I touch a nerve there? I am just stating truth whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.19649651]

>>19649587

Ok, stop. The reason I included children was because children have to be provided for as well. That has nothing to do with leadership. You provide for pets, you provide for kids, you provide for women, these are things you love and care about but they do not rule you.

Men rule women. That is how it naturally is. He could take care of his woman, or he could neglect her. In the older days it was pretty easy to get away with beating or killing your wife. It's quite literally up to the man who owns her.

It just dawned on me that you're a woman, aren't you? You're fucking stupid. You can look all around you and see men dominate positions of leadership at the national and business level, and all through the annals of recorded history and still insist we're a matriarchy.

LMFAO

[Anonymous No.19649652]

>>19649469
>Muh everything is Freudian

You cannot begin to comprehend how fucking retarded your philosophy is. Women can smell you thirsty beta fags that do everything for pussy a mile away. You call me immature when you compartmentalize the entire worldview of the motives of man into that of a 17 year old horny teenager. Hopefully a strong male rolemodel comes into your life and slaps you in the face for putting pussy on the pedestal

[Anonymous No.19649820]

>>19649650
>About how they are tough that they only "lift for themselves" and other gay fucking shit
Spoken like someone who's never hit a PR in the gym before, haven't you? You guys are so fucking obvious, it's hilarious. You just place the chicken before the egg because it helps you cope with your lack of discipline to get anything done.

[Anonymous No.19649837]

>>19649651
>equating women, dogs and children
Do you have sex with dogs and children? No? Then its not the same. You're trying to logically clump them together to reduce my argument, but its not working because they are too different.
>In the older days it was pretty easy to get away with beating or killing your wife.
That gets society nowhere and you do not get to raise your children. I mean, I guess the man could do that after they have the child, but then again that would suggest an extreme case of violence in the family that would naturally weed them out through natural selection. So it just doesn't work.
>It's quite literally up to the man who owns her.
Yes, its up to the man....to provide for her the resources and protection necessary to build a family. I am always going to win this.

>It just dawned on me that
Nope, I'm a man.But it just dawned on me that you are having such trouble grasping that fact that men have always served women. You want this so badly. But it just aint true buddy. Men have served women through leadership.
>>19649652
>"I don't put women on a pedestal, I swear"
>Look at me, I'm an alpha! I don't do things for women! I do it FOR ME!
I can feel your insecurity from a mile away.

[Anonymous No.19649876]

>>19649820
>Spoken like someone who's never hit a PR in the gym before, haven't you?
You actually went there, bro you are so insecure lmao. lmao. Literally lol.

[Anonymous No.19649895]

>>19647637
I don't know. This is a Business & Finance board.

[Anonymous No.19649918]

>>19649837
>Do you have sex with dogs and children? No? Then its not the same. You're trying to logically clump them together to reduce my argument, but its not working because they are too different.

Dude... how do you not understand what I'm saying here? Just because you work for something that you care about doesn't make you servile to it. Holy shit. That's all I've got to say, you're really that stubborn in your little simp cope.

[Anonymous No.19649921]

>>19647637
not that hard. i found my wife on tinder 5 years ago. happily married.

[Anonymous No.19650058]

>>19649373
>Capitalism is probably disgenic.
It's actually welfare couple with modern science which is disgenic. There is pretty solid evidence of gradual IQ rise from the 1400s till around 1880 in england, and America for that matter (using methods like average level of complex language and Grammer usage in writing), a period during which every year the bottom 1% of society was executed for crime, even petty crime, and wealthy families had a well documented reproductive advantage over poor families. Something like an average of twice as many children each generation. This all changed with the adoption of public hospitals, schooling etc. Germ theory in particular, coupled with redistributive healthcare, has led to a massive artificial boost to the reproductively of those who would have otherwise died soon after childbirth from deleterious gene mutations. We are several generations deep into disgenic reproduction, the only two things that will reverse the trend is either a return to darwinian selection following the collapse of redistributive government, or massive advances to gene editing before we enter terminal IQ levels where such innovation is no longer possible. Average IQ of Victorian era englanders and Americans is estimated to be about 112 compared to today's 100. Per capita innovation has cratered over the last 100 years.

[Anonymous No.19650192]

>>19649501
Stop, stop, he's already dead!

[Anonymous No.19650298]

>>19650058
This is a pretty severe blackpill, but it needs to be understood. Reading the correspondence of Englishmen and Americans as last as the 1860s feels like talking to an entirely different species, even when the individual in question wasn't a man of letters. Random shopkeepers and low level commissioned officers come across as more literate and expressive than most modern academics.

[Anonymous No.19650313]

>>19649918
>Just because you work for something that you care about doesn't make you servile to it. Holy shit.
No one fucking said that. You are personalizing this. I am looking at this through nature's lens. I am just calling it how it is.

How is it a patriarchy when most of the people who die in battle and in combat are men?

How is it a patriarchy when most of the people who do physical labor are men?

How is it a patriarchy when its men who are the sex that commits more suicide?

How is a patriarchy when women are the ones who traditionally enjoyed the fruits of a man's labor?

How is a patriarchy when its men who die earlier than women?

How is it a patriarchy when men are expected to take a bullet for women?

Herpa derp! Surprise surprise, it's a matriarchy. Pic related is you.

[Anonymous No.19650331]

>>19650313

>unironically posting le epic smartjak with that list of totally irrelevant cherrypicked bullshit after getting BTFO rationally

Have at it

HERPA DERP HAHAHA. You are literally a woman and you're too ashamed to admit it.

HERPA DERP

[Anonymous No.19650353]

>>19650331
>Making this into a contest between men and women when it never was a contest
>B-b-b-ut you're a woman!! Cause I SAID SO!

[Anonymous No.19650400]

>>19650331
Are you an idiot or what? He just listed out things that no feminist woman would acknowledge. This is absolute brainlet tier. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19650427]

>>19650353

No, it's because you're not comprehending what I'm saying, insisting I'm the one who's "surface level" like some Dunning Krugerfag, and you respond in cutesy cliches complete with a trite response pic while larping as a totally epic manly man who also thinks men are naturally servants to women in a matriarchy. If women are so leaderly why don't you own up to the fact that you are one?

>No let's ignore the fact that 99% of leaders in recorded history were men and that the traditional human society was built around polygamous, male at the top hierarchies, the fact that a lot of guys kill themselves today means humans are matriarchal

Maybe you should kys with that strain of utter, willing ignorance

[Anonymous No.19650434]

>>19650298
Idiocracy is a real thing

[Anonymous No.19650442]

>>19650400

>the fact that men commit suicide and die in war are evidence of matriarchy. The fact that men are... patriarchs. Across the entire fucking board. Is not.

[Anonymous No.19650459]

>>19647637
You need to start going to church.

[Anonymous No.19650511]

>>19650427
>You're not comprehending
I'm comprehending perfectly fine, you're just wrong. And you are mad that you are wrong.

>men are naturally servants to women in a matriarchy
In order to provide for women you must be strong. Women seek out the strongest men to reproduce with (at least, the best they can judge). This is how nature works. Hypergamy is a real thing. Its to ensure the species stays fit and strong.

I dont know how many times I have to repeat it, but a woman takes a man's produce and turns it into a family and passes his genes on. Men have been selected over time for certain traits to ensure strength and power, such as physical strength, intelligence, etc etc, and also traits that assist in the rearing of children.

Women arent leaderly per se. They influence men. They turn the attention to where they want men to look. Have you ever been in a relationship with a woman? Women have ways to influence men. I mean, it sounds like you never had a relationship with a woman. If you did, you would acknowledge this.

But I mean, I guess you havent. What a shame. This is probably why you project with your "larping".

[Anonymous No.19650538]

>>19650511

I'm not wrong. I'm not the one insisting humans are matriarchal, despite all evidence, historical, biological, to the contrary. I'm not the one inventing some situation where men are submissive to women. You can believe what you want dude, or dudette, who gives a shit, this is the dumbest conversation I've had on this site today and the joke's on me for thinking it was going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.19650569]

>>19650434
If you need further proof, please look to your left at the guy with 19 replies.

[Anonymous No.19650595]

Nearly impossible. I'm recently divorced. 75% of my friends are divorced. Keep in mind we are all good and caring men who generally make over 100k a year.

Western culture today is a nightmare and the worst part of it is the expectations and attitudes of women today.

Don't get married. Don't expect love or trust. Believe me you won't get it. If you're dead set on getting a long term woman or wife get a 3rd world woman. My ONE friend who is happily married has a wife from south america.

[Anonymous No.19650611]

>>19650538
>despite all evidence, historical, biological, to the contrary.
I have showed you all of the examples you even provided for me, that indeed, humans are matriarchal. Its simple law of nature that women are more important than men. I dont know how much clearer it can be.

The problem is that you and many others take it in a political manner. You get insecure. You get angry and lash out and say "I'm a strong man, men are patriarchal! We OWN women!" It's funny stuff. I dont think any of you had relationships on here.

I got a much better reaction when I made several threads about this on /x/.

Women are more important than men. its literally the law of nature. One man can repopulate an entire village of women. If there was one woman with a village of men, there would be war and chaos. It just wouldnt work.

>I'm not the one inventing some situation where men are submissive to women.
You are taking this literally. Men serve women through leading them. Why do you think men opened doors for women? ITS AN ACT OF SERVICE. HERPA DERP!

But the morons on here would say its "men capitulating to women".

[Anonymous No.19650623]

>>19648227

100% accurate.

The only thing I'll add is that many women today don't respect this dynamic and the contribution on their end that is to be expected.

[Anonymous No.19650666]

>>19650611

>Continuing to post cringeworthy "le epic man" pics like a shirtless ripped dude and don draper
>DUDE YOU DONT GET IT SIMPING IS ACTUALLY AWESOME WE LET WOMEN LEAD AND THINGS ARE FRICKEN SWEET HAPPY WIFE HAPPY LIFE LMAO
>HERPA DERP

I promise you I'm not angry about the women, I do perfectly fine with them, I'm angry about you and how fucking annoying you are lmao

[Anonymous No.19650677]

fine a girl which is not lost in social media and win her with alpha charme. PROFIT.

[Anonymous No.19650726]

>>19650666
>Providing and protecting women is letting women lead
>You're a simp if you please your woman
>You're a simp if you keep your wife happy
>Posting strong men is simp
So cringe

[Anonymous No.19650731]

>>19648470
This never happened. Men by and large are white knight betas who serve women. Always was the case

[Anonymous No.19650757]

>>19648149
No toure not crazy anon. The reason you feel that way is because you are capable of having an original thought and arent a nigger.
I also want to clarify you dont have to be black to be a nigger

[Anonymous No.19650877]

>>19650611
Is this varg?

[Anonymous No.19651127]

>>19650877
Nah, at least Varg had initiative to do things, even if that involved arson of historic churches, a stabbing murder, and starting a family with your young bride.

I don't think this poster is even capable of scamming the French welfare system.

[Anonymous No.19651181]

>>19651127
So triggered. So much low T. Stay mad

[Anonymous No.19651243]

>>19648177

[Anonymous No.19651248]

>>19650569
if women are the "selectors" then they are the ones who need to fix this shit, by stop selecting the worst men

[Anonymous No.19651308]

>>19650442
What kind of brainlet logic is this? Holy fuck. Idiocracy. Women are biologically literally more important than men which is why I think its a 51% or 52 birth rate for women and less for men. That's how important women are. Men are literally disposable. Unless you prove yourself. Don't hate the player hate the game.
>But muh patriarchy
Fucking virgins

[Anonymous No.19651336]

>>19651308
Actually it's reverse I believe but that's because so many fucking men die in shit. More men die in labor and in wars so nature makes up for it

[Anonymous No.19651413]

>>19648036
Dogs
> Never divorce rape you
> Low cost
> Always happy to see you come home
> Leave you alone after the initial burst of salutations
> Never have to tell you about how bad their day was
> Can legally be neutered/ spayed
> Go to Heaven when they die therefore are more divine than man
> Genetically manipulable as a wrestling video game
> Licks genitals, cleaner mouth anyway
> Programmable

Horses are second place, cats third place, women maximum fifth place.

[Anonymous No.19651498]

I don’t even know why you guys argue around something so natural and evident. Just look around and you see polygamy Is practiced in almost all civilization historically or presently. If you want to talk about natural selection, note that a pride consists of one alpha male that breeds all female a in similar way.
I simply don’t see how you can conclude a male SERVES females. A male is taking his fair share of women through competition against other males, not through courting a specific female.
Of course, there are exceptions. But even when you look at monogamous mammals you see the same dynamic play out. Woman is acquired for the sole purpose of reproduction, where the children are named after the MAN! That’s why woman brings with her dowry from her parents as the price for her living under man and using his resources.

This is truly a clown world where the basic relationship between man and women corrupted beyond belief .

[Anonymous No.19651536]

>>19647637
who cares
make money, no vacation

[Anonymous No.19651594]

>>19651248
Natural selection selects according to the environment. A new crop of disease making whoring around much more likely to result in sterility/death would be a 'natural' selection pressure toward monogamy. Extreme social pressures (ostracism, honor killings, etc...) would be anthropomorphic selection pressures. Basically, being a retard with no impulse control, no ability to plan ahead, and little ability to do things you don't like to do used to result in freezing, starving, being eaten by predators, or generally failing to pass on your genes, and make sure your kids live to do the same.

We're already seeing a new separation that started in the 1960s, when we got good at moving gifted people out of the poor and working class, and moving them into educational tracks that landed them in better economic and social circles. They then marry in these circles, and their kids rarely drop out of this strata. The middle class is only dying because its bifurcating.

[Anonymous No.19651595]

>>19651498
You just answered your own question as to why men serve women. Women came with a dowry because they are ultimately a resource drain on a man. The dowry is a sign of respect. Women literally drain the resources of a man.
Men are the ones that actually do the work in a relationship. Women only have a few jobs. It has always been a matriarchy. We like to pretend it's a patriarchy, I guess cause of feminism and shit, but men have always serviced women which is why they used to open doors, pull out chairs etc. The goal is to always raise the family and children which is why a woman's needs come first. They always have.
Yet according to some Anons it's a patriarchy? Mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.19651654]

>>19651498
Yes, polygamy is the natural state of man, but a poor system to get past oogaboogaing around a grass hut.

[Anonymous No.19651729]

>>19651595
If you look at reproduction as giving birth to nameless spawns then it can be argued that men serve women because they control the means of production.
However, man care about the child bearing his name and inherit from his family. Only man can pass down the family linage and that’s why women is only a tool and is thus replaceable.
We may argue the about the meaning of the word serve. But when you look at much of the history you will see women’s value is tremendous low and replaceable if she cannot bear a son for the family.
In that sense, women serves the man by giving him a son.

[Anonymous No.19651910]

>>19651729
More mental gymnastics. I guess this is fueled by the frustration on the sexual situation in the West.
>Women is a tool and thus replaceable
Men die in wars and men die in physical labor. One man can reproduce an entire village if needed. The most important resource of a society is women which is partially why they were always kept away from combat. This is more brainlet tier mental gymnastics. Women are more important because of literally biology. 90% of the men in a village could die but if the women were safe the village would go on.

[Anonymous No.19651988]

>>19651729
Another dynamic to consider is that women are married young and ‘cast’ out of her family at a very young age. The reason is women can be very productive in the fields, so they are liability to her own family. They why they pay to send her away, and the dowry is the present value of her maintenance cost.
Does the man serve the women because her family paid for her? I don’t think so. It would if the man is offering his service in exchange for the dowry, but we all know that’s often not the case because men dont accept the women base purely on dowry.

It’s more like a swap for the women’s family where they pay a lump sum at the front. The man is just taking the other side of the trade.

[Anonymous No.19652045]

>>19651988
>are very productive in the fields
Are you Chinese or something? The reason why women are married off early is because that's when their sexual market value is the highest. In contrast, a man's sexual market value was varied but generally it takes years upon years to build up wealth which is why it was socially acceptable for a 30 year old to marry a 20 year old.

[Anonymous No.19652073]

>>19651910
I think it boils down to your position.
If you’re a pleb, then protecting women is your primary concern and the number of available women in society matters to you.
If you are a patrician, then the number of women do t matter to you. You can always get women from within or outside of your race. Therefore you don’t serve women.

90% of men die in the village, leaving 10% of aristocrats in tact. So it doesn’t really matter to them, they get to have their pick anyways.

So yes, you are right. Lower class men must expend their life to fight for the ‘collective’ goods. Their value is only to serve.

[Anonymous No.19652113]

>>19651729
>women’s value is tremendous low and replaceable if she cannot bear a son for the family.

Only for the highest men in society. Normies cannot replace wifes.

[Anonymous No.19652191]

>>19652073
Your mental gymnastics is truly astounding. Patrician, pleb, the smaller number of women the more competition you will have. Period.
>Therefore you don't serve women
You cannot escape biology. You are so desperate to find a way out it's laughable. What's ironic is that European society for the longest time was built upon strong matriarchal principles which help made it so successful.

[Anonymous No.19652405]

>>19652191

I’m not escaping biology, and I’m not arguing whether European society is successful or not base on their man-women relationship.

Social structure conforms to biology and I see where you are coming from where male lives are in fact more expendable. And it is true one male can impregnate many female.
However, why is the natural ratio 50/50 for all species if the males numbers are not as important? Wouldn’t a different breed of 40/60 split win out? This is because 50/50 is evolutionary stable strategy.
I do not think you can’t make the argument about females are evolutionarily more important. Unless you see the slightly off ratio 100:102 as the sufficient evidence for discrimination.

[Anonymous No.19652899]

>>19649837
>Do you have sex with dogs and children? No? Then its not the same. You're trying to logically clump them together to reduce my argument, but its not working because they are too different.
and what does sex have to do with providing for someone not being equal with serving someone? he destroyed your argument and you're just inserting random goalposts at this point. you should just end it and stop making even a bigger retard out of yourself