Its funny. This whole roastie life on easy mode thing is basically

File: 78503e8d8797ac14fd8204fd05103719.jpg (14KB, 191x263px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 191x263px

>>34239731
Women are hollow creatures seeking only to fill their own emptiness.

They lack the sense of completion a man can have after having done a ground-breaking feat by their own standard (like getting to date a qt or having your own house)

Women are naturally unsatisfied by everything they have and want more. Never once have I seen a man naturally wanting to aesthetically renovate the entirety of his property for his own ego; usually, it's either :
>A) His woman pushes him to do it with the "closing the holes" argument.
>B)He does it in the prospect of obtaining said woman later on, kind of like a bait in hunting.

Women crave for more all the time. It has always been like that, but since men were legitimatelly in control of everything (not like the feminists keep saying happens still today, because, in the majority of cases, it DOESN'T), they were only allowed a little bit every once in a while, making them happy for a longer while.

Nowadays, women can literally buy anything they want, either through having a nice, stable job, a nice, stable relationship with some rich man, or a nice, stable bank loan. With everything at their fingertips, they... flatten. They feel hollow. Worst part is, most of the time, just to feel that emptiness, they take it out on either men or in incredibly stupid enterprises that leave them looking like idiots.

>>34239908
Interesting post anon. Never heard that emtiness argument but this 'they want more' is true. I think thats the main reason they nearly never relax or keep cool.

I dont hate women. I know a few (just a bit. No close friends) and they seem to be cool but theres always something I dont like about them. Also insecure about lack of sexual experience and body shape.

My main problem is that emotions come before logic. They cant rationalize true reasoning when they get emotional. Only the real manly women and they always think they are so smart and become arrogant.

Same experience for you guys?

>>34239731
Agreed, also >>34240358

>My main problem is that emotions come before logic. They cant rationalize true reasoning when they get emotional. Only the real manly women and they always think they are so smart and become arrogant.

The only solution is to become as strong and powerful as possible for men, what beauty is to a woman power and strength is to us, both physically and mentally, if you have neither you are repulsive.

They always want to have their cake and eat it too.

Their 'sympathy' for others is a the female equivalent of lording it over someone. That's why they go for all the social degrees, if they are in a position to help others that makes them be in a position of being needed by another, it implies dependence, which in turn makes those people weaker than themselves, it's a female powerplay, their caring nature is a charade.

File: 1481622032568.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>34240358
>>34240806
>That's why they go for all the social degrees, if they are in a position to help others that makes them be in a position of being needed by another, it implies dependence, which in turn makes those people weaker than themselves, it's a female powerplay, their caring nature is a charade.

I don't think I've ever heard anything that ringed true that much.

Althought, I have to say, they also follow social studies because it's a thrend for women to follow social studies. Women are naturally predisposed to follow thrends more easily than men, as far as I've observed during my 16 years of education.

It's kind of sickening to see that women are the more sociable of the two sexes and the one exhubing the most solidarity, as in partaking the same course to be supported by hundreds of others dogmatics, while they, at best, see each others as merely nothing more than human stepping stones

>>34241102
>ringed*rang
I am a failure of a college-degree-holding man

>>34239908
Do you think consumer society has anything to do with it? Like How the goyim are psychologically manipulated, are women far more susceptible to this?

>>34240358
Ye. My mom has very little sentimental emotions.
Greentexting is hard on mobile

Be me
Order a peace lilly (heard they were good air filters)
Also get aloe plants from moms work
They get infected with fungus gnats
She doesnt care and berates me on trying to combat them
Aloe sprouts dying, mom keeps breaking plant to rub aloe on herself
Give in to shipping and taxes and buy some nematodes (40 cancucks)
Mom gets angry at me for "wasting money when you could just by a new set of plants", and for tending the plant as necessary (needed to douse the soil and keep it wet for a week or so)

Am i wrong for wanting to stick it through? For not forsaking the plants?

File: 1482162730417.jpg (208KB, 741x773px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 741x773px

>>34241311
I believe that women are probably the one who pushed the society of consommation in existence.

A new vacuum cleaner only 2.5% more efficient (arbitrary value) than the one I have at home? For 1500$ more? And I need to throw out my old one? NO PROBLEM! I'll have my husband buy it to me/I'll buy it myself!

I also believe women massively buying cars are the reason why they're so ugly and round and small these days.

>Trying to make cars into """""cute""""" things

I don't believe in a massive jewish conspiracy, but I do believe that corporations are using that weakness that women have for trinkets, odds and ends to enrich themselves, and it's working; even better, women don't even realize they have that weakness and when we tell them, we have the feminists on our asses!.

>>34241102
It's logical for them to do so, being weaker endowed in the more direct ways to assert power, their only recourse is to manipulate that which is more powerful in order to assert their own power over other individuals, they determine their value by how wanted they are and by how much they can influence others to do their bidding.

>>34241311
They suffer from insecurity to a greater degree than males because they depend on social validation to determine their self-worth, they also tend to more holistic thinking as opposed to analytical, so yes, they are susceptible targets to manipulate and in turn this affects the male populace.

most women aren't pressured to be taken seriously, so they don't take *themselves* seriously. like, the burden that men feel is huge. be assertive. be gentle. be a leader. be humble. be intelligent. be wise. be light-hearted. women just have to look good. and say "no." and make demands. but if you've met a woman who was actually raised *against* all that cunt shit, yet she was not raised a militant half-dyke shithead either, she is totally respectable. i know this girl who was a valedictorian, athlete, clarinet player, and a GENUINELY nice, non-condescending person. somebody raised her to go hard, do her shit like a man, and be humble about it. i would vote for her as president tomorrow. no joke. because she was raised to be taken seriously. not be an object. not be radical. but be a contributor and a decent person. some women are only one of those. most of them are neither.

women almost never are allowed to fail. and i mean to the point of literally begging for help (or begging for sex, like men). but women who have had genuinely fucked up shit happen to them are not narcissistic. have you ever met a sad, defeated woman? they're around. but because bitches usually lean on their dumb dysfunctional friends to hugbox each other, they're very rare.

their biology is to lie and manipulate. and they (along with pop culture's help) do this by establishing women as arbiters of morality and standards. and somehow, it works. women are not rational. women are not objective. women are not critical, constructive thinkers unless it's for a grade. culture has made it so that women pretend to be men and mimic male achievement, but somehow think their feminine nature is what got them there.

File: 1480944757582s.jpg (3KB, 125x121px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x121px

>>34239731
>>34239908
>>34240358
>>34240806
>>34241102
>>34241124
>>34241311
>>34241457
>>34241473
>>34241603
Can we all take a moment to realize and appreciate how unautistic this thread is compared to the others.

These kind of threads are the reason I browse /r9k/ at all.

Not woman-hating, just plain observations. It's simply amazing.

Feels good man.

>>34241603
>so that women pretend to be men and mimic male achievement, but somehow think their feminine nature is what got them there.

>their biology is to lie and manipulate. and they (along with pop culture's help) do this by establishing women as arbiters of morality and standards. and somehow, it works

Well put.

They mimic the appearance of validity but they always seem to twist rationality around to validate their subjective emotional experience of things because they believe that to be right at all times, rather than first trying to analyze and understand what something is and how and why before forming any sentiments about it, as it should be.

But to change this in them seems impossible, it goes against their nature so it's swimming against the current to begin with and if they are unwilling on top of that than there is virtually no point in even trying.

The emasculation is another attempt in line with their agenda to place themselves above others, in this case, weak males, they subvert everything which is seen as holding truth or authority, science is the latest victim, they slap its good name onto their own twisted manipulative designs in order to gain validity, they corrupt it and there is not enough fight against this.

>>34242147
>They mimic the appearance of validity but they always seem to twist rationality around to validate their subjective emotional experience of things because they believe that to be right at all times, rather than first trying to analyze and understand what something is and how and why before forming any sentiments about it, as it should be.
this is a good description of this thread.

really makes me think.

>>34241457
>tfw you look at the leaders of the sketchy corporations and their all jews.
Dnc, wmf, Hollywood, disney, soros, isreal getting a tantrum when someone doesnt see them in a positive light (like when the un decided not to be pro isreal on something)

It feels too much to be a coincidence

>>34241650
What normies call women hating is really analytical evidence. We see, we post, we learn. Hopefully more threads like this appear

>>34241603
>most women aren't pressured to be taken seriously, so they don't take *themselves* seriously. like, the burden that men feel is huge. be assertive. be gentle. be a leader. be humble. be intelligent. be wise. be light-hearted. women just have to look good. and say "no." and make demands.
This is really the core of it all. And its self perpetuating: because men need to work harder to be attractive (or successful), women will have more of a pick of the best guy.
I'm trying to think of why it is this way, rather than guys having all the sexual power. Of course in pre-birth control times, it was because women had to choose a father carefully, but now it presumably should be an equal playing field. Is it just because when this cycle started, men were higher value in general, so women had their pick, and it has continued?

File: image.jpg (55KB, 629x505px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 629x505px

I wonder what women think when they see discussions like this.

Most of them either have zero self-insight or just immediately pull a 'NO U' and project their failings onto males, I've noticed. It seems none of them are willing to admit that they do these things.

>tfw deep down inside i don't hate women, but i truly do see them all as those little monkeys who swing across branches and steal shiny shit to covet

like nothing matters to them but that shiny object and their offspring.
and that's okay, just stay the hell away from me, fucking simple animals.

>>34243920
i think some of the things they say are true, some are exaggerations, some are realities twisted to be as ugly as possible and some are complete bullshit. it's obviously one-sided and discusses only what women might be lacking. i also think that there are always too many absolutes involved and too many assumptions about the nature of all women. i would never assume anything about all men because it's unrealistic to think that all behavior and thinking comes down to gender alone. it's based in reality but heavily oversimplified and far from objective, making it into something that more closely resembles venting than scholarly analysis.

i also think some of these people are idiots.