Do people actually believe this kind of shit? It's one thing to lack experience with real life females but to lack knowledge about human biology and gender differences combined with that is pretty embarrassing, hence pic related.
I'm a complete normie who comes here just for laughs, and I have never encountered a woman who was able to talk with me on a level anywhere equal to what I would expect of a man. Women are just plain dumb.
It's a pretty simplistic way of looking at the relationship between men and women, for sure. But at the same time I don't know that it's altogether wrong. Like, I don't think girls are actively having that thought like "Shit, no can argue with superior gender girl brain no words enough to do...me use juicy doom hole instead!!"
But on some level I feel like this does happen. Even if that's just me being naive.
>posts incredibly common argumentative tactic women take
>HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THIS
girls have typically been engaged in petty backstabbing drama with their friends since they hit puberty, where winning the argument is secondary to winning the crowd. if you can destroy someone's confidence/standing, you don't need to listen to anything they say. in their social circles, calling a man a permavirgin is the ultimate insult--it equates to complete and utter exile. is it any shock that it's used in place of an argument?
OP's pic goes way too far and it's pretty obvious that there's a preexisting anti-female bias. But it's a fact that women tend to make arguments based on emotion and men tend to make arguments based on logic. Women are usually more in touch with their emotions to a fault which I guess could be construed as a different type of intellect, but it's also why they lose debates with men or have to resort to spouting buzzwords and making emotional appeals.
>claim that men (manbabies*) do the exact same thing and, unlike you manbabies, support proof of this by showcasing an image used to shortcut an argument
jesus christ, get back on your meds. no part of this incredibly disjointed run-on sentence happened
It is a basic look at it and it has truth to it.
Everyone who has ever been in a relationship knows this.
Anyone that says different is a bitch or a beta.
Yes, I believe this.
It's also why females often point out that they are females and begin threads and posts with saying that they are female = having holes.
It's an attempt to transfer female privilege into the online world.
>But show me evidence of men, as aggregate, having "superior minds" to women, as aggregate
Schopenhauer is a meme, and some of his views on women are outdated. He assumes that the reason there are far fewer female "geniuses" is because of their intellect, not due to their general intellectual oppression or discouragement over time; however he does raise valid points
However, even taking these limits in, he makes a good point.
Don't confuse "not as pathetic, stupid, repulsive, and unaccomplished" with "literally feminism and white knight beta headquarter."
Reddit's pretty MRA-infested and therefore shit, it's just not as hilariously suicide-worthy as you lot.
Even as a woman, I gotta admit that women are generally dumb as rocks. It's how they're raised. Parents want to protect their little girls, and that stunts them for life by making them underestimate themselves. They see that other people want to protect and support them and develop a personality that needs to be protected and supported It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I lucked out. My parents raised me away from all that little princess garbage and away from society in general and now I'm a patent-holding engineer. Other women are fucking insufferable.
Men aren't really much better, they're all emotionally dense as fuck. I've yet to meet someone that can come to blows with me in intellect and emotional intelligence all in one package. I go to men for intellect and I go to women for emotional intelligence. I've nearly given up on finding another human being with both.
>now I'm a patent-holding engineer. Other women are fucking insufferable.
You want to be an honorary man like most other women these days. The problem, of course, is that you're still a woman.
The logical equivalent to kick-ass-engineer-women-are-fucking-insufferable females like you would be a soft-spoken male kindergarten teacher that is totally not afraid of strong women and women that are some inches taller than him.
But you wouldn't want to date a man like that, because you're still a woman and still hypergamous.
This is what right-wingers often get wrong: our society hasn't become "softer" or more "feminine"; quite the opposite: it has become much harder and more masculine, because now even women are masculine and want a man that is EVEN more masculine than themselves.
>Just because we don't give a shit about your mind games, doesn't make us stupid.
Just because we don't care doesn't mean we don't understand. Men probably understand women better than women understand themselves.
You're just a man with vagina, complete outcast from men and women. You're the type who gets seduced without any effort, practically any semi-Chad could show attention and you'd be all over him.
No, that's definitely not true. I'm not manly, either. I'm pretty feminine and have pretty feminine interests. I just also like science.
>You want to be an honorary man like most other women these days.
I'm really not interested in being like men.
If you're better than the men I've seen, then that's fine. It's just that one time one of my denser exes literally walked into a room and I was on the bed naked with a condom in my mouth and he didn't understand that I wanted to have sex with him.
No, he wasn't just dropping spaghetti or too anxious to acknowledge it--he literally didn't understand.
In hindsight, he probably had some sort of autism. I was attracted to him for his intelligence and I may have gone a little too far in that regard.
>because you're still a woman and still hypergamous.
I am extremely monogamous and I actually get pretty bad oneitis.
>You're just a man with vagina, complete outcast from men and women
Actually, it's the reverse. Everyone crushes on me. I have 14 stalkers right now--8 male stalkers and 6 female stalkers. Everyone seems to be attracted to me regardless of their normal taste.
>because now even women are masculine and want a man that is EVEN more masculine than themselves.
Also, no. I really like cute/cuddly guys, especially if they're shy and I can tease them.
>he probably had some sort of autism. I was attracted to him for his intelligence
Possible. Real autism and real asperger's (not the meme-version here on r9k) often goes hand in hand with high intelligence, usually in a STEM field.
If I refuse to tell you, you can call me a liar for that and people unfamiliar with the patent system might believe you.
But what they probably don't understand is that patents contain full identifying information, so if I tell you, you could look it up and find my name and get my address. I'm going to pick not backing up my post over being on some internet shitlist. It's not like people on /r9k/ believing me changes the truth.
nice, another tripfag.
>Don't confuse "not as pathetic, stupid, repulsive, and unaccomplished" with "literally feminism and white knight beta headquarter."
yes, being a women worshipping cuckold is quite an accomplishment and not stupid, repulsive and pathetic at all
> it's just not as hilariously suicide-worthy as you lot.
what the hell are you doing here then?
Sorry if you're legitimately just interested in my inventions, but I have a lot of stalkers already and I don't want more.
Lel, one of them sent me a diary full of pictures of self-cuts with the title "Because I'm not with you."
The female stalkers are definitely crazier than the male stalkers.
>The female stalkers are definitely crazier than the male stalkers.
Female stalkers are like children, threatening their parents with self-harm and suicide. Male stalkers are more creepy and/or threaten with violence.
There has to be at least one article right? I like having sources to argue with, pulling a "oh well I don't have a source but thats bevuase they aren't allowed to publish articles on that" is loose butthole.
Jews are a much smaller group than black people. There are only around 15 million jews in the world. This means that people in that category who do exceptionally well on that test increases the average much more than someone who does exceptionally well from the category of black people (and vice versa), because there are a lot more black people than there are Jews.
It's unlikely enough that all of the people it meant to categorize did the test, but if they didn't, how can it be representative for how a certain type of people are? How can test results represent someone who hasn't taken the test? Or am I being a retard?