A Woman is a Man's Property

Before you foam at the mouth and verbally assault me, read carefully what I have written; what I’m about to reveal is a deeply hidden truth about the nature of human dynamics.

Woman is a fragile, soft, and delicate being. She is not equipped with the requisite physical faculties to engage in carnivorous combat. Her mental and emotional properties crumble upon the brutal force of heated warfare. The stresses of war have a tendency to render females infertile. Her role is to nurture and be protected. It is a man’s biological imperative to take on the external world; Nature has provided him with a superior physical anatomy for hunting and combat. He has to not only hunt for himself, but he has to also provide shelter and sustenance for his woman and progeny, thus his wife is, naturally, a part of his possession. It is the female’s role to submit to her mate’s authority or else he disposes of her, leaving her to fend for herself in the harsh and cruel wilderness.

In natural settings, it is a great joy for a woman to be submissive to her man, but within the confines of artificial societies, contradictory memetic infections whisper demonic, unnatural lullabies into her cranium - telling her that dominant males are sexist and immoral, etc, etc and that she should be attracted to a more gentle beta-male. It’s the eternal battle of meme vs gene. Most virile females are evolutionarily hardwired to be attracted to males of supereminent strength and courage, i.e., Alpha-males. This sexual gravitation is a emanation of cosmic gravitation ( E.g., the weaker force is pulled in by the stronger). The man is the superior being that pulls in or attracts the weaker being: woman.

The female becomes subsumed within the superior force which is the male, therefore it is her mandatory duty to respect her master. If she deviates from his will, it is only natural that he discipline her with appropriate punishment. It is not to be frowned on if the man chooses to chain her up; in more primeval times, it was a past time for men to, as it were, go hunting for fine maidens - capturing them by brute force and chaining them up until they become more domesticated. Is it no surprise therefore that modern females in many cases have a peculiar fetish for being utterly dominated by their male partners? Thousands and thousands of years of evolution can’t be erased from the collective unconscious of the feminine gender so easily - despite the attempts by modern nihilists ( Feminists ).

A woman’s nature, her psyche is characterized by chaos - randomness. She longs for a masculine figure to direct her flow, to organize her - to dominate her. Woman is chaos - Man is order.

A woman should not be permitted to have ’ equal rights '; such notions are absurd in natural settings. Equal rights can only exist amongst equals. Man and woman are not equal - they are very different. But within this modern nihilistic context, there is a collective will to level humanity, to reduce all to an amorphous paste. It springs forth from a hatred of the senses, a hatred of differentiation. It’s anti-nature.

The female is, essentially, a organic replication machine. Her job is to breed more warriors. She is to be protected and loved, of course. But she is not permitted to be equal or above her master; she belongs to her master - she is beneath him. It is cosmic law that the strong must always rule over the weak.

What kind of strong?
Plenty of animals are stronger than humans but they don’t rule humanity.
Strength is over-rated. Apes are stronger than us does that make them better?

There are several different types of strengths. The two major ones are mental and physical strength. Humans are superior to Apes because of intelligence. Man is greater than woman because he is both physically and mentally superior.

This is so hopelessly out of date. Superior physical anatomy no longer matters. What matters in modern complex societies is intelligence and social ability, which is why women are taking over the world.

Women are smarter than men, because for a million years they’ve had to be to compete with the superior physical anatomy. Now that superior physical anatomy no longer matters, and smarts are what counts, men are about to learn what it’s like to be the weaker gender.

I propose that men will eventually be phased out, as they are simply too dangerous. They will become increasingly dangerous as it dawns on them that the modern world no longer needs them. As best I can tell, this is already playing itself out in groups such as Islamic extremists.

You’re missing the fact that women use sex, to seduce men. Without sex, what do women become reduced to?

A woman without sex becomes as expendable as men already are, and always have been. Men are used to this condition, women are not. This is also a primary motivator of feminism. Because women fear what life looks like, without this sexual power over men, controlling men, enticing men. Feminists are scared shitless by the idea of “equality”, that a woman’s sex is equivalent or similar to male sexuality.

But it’s not, and there’s a huge price for people to pay by committing the mistake of believing gender is equal. Both men and women can, and do, everyday, pay a huge price for buying into lies.

Ever met a jaded woman before? Is she the type of person men want to be around?

that’s nonsense.

Why aren’t there more woman scientists then?

The vulgar textbook message hypnotized through socialist media.
“The Matrix has you.”

So that’s why all these virile women come at me…because of my alphaness. It makes sense.

No society in history has succeeded in controlling violent men. Science is increasingly empowering everyone, including violent men, which makes them ever more dangerous. As example, a handful of men at the top of power structures in various countries now have the ability to end civilization in a single afternoon.

Phasing out men does sound like nonsense until say for example (god forbid) there’s another war between India and Pakistan, and 100 million people are killed within a few hours and both countries are polluted beyond repair.

At such a tragic moment the threat posed by violent men stops being abstract, and is now experienced as something very real and immediate. Unless a method for controlling violent men is found, women will then face a choice between their man and their children and grandchildren, and we all know who will win that contest.

This presumes scientists are smart, which generally speaking I propose is not true. Scientists are clever, which is something else.

This is another thread, but briefly, it is science that is empowering the innate insanity of the human race, and making us ever more a threat to ourselves.

Scientists are still stuck in an outdated “more is better” relationship with knowledge left over from an earlier era. The scientific community does not have the smarts to seriously ask fundamental questions like “How much knowledge is enough, and how much is too much?” I propose this is likely at least in part because the scientific community has long been dominated by men.

Scientists are like highly educated car mechanics. They can be very useful, but they generally don’t have the vision to ask the bigger questions, particularly to question the limits of their own work.

You got that part right.

Being an idiot man myself, I am convinced I get every part right. :slight_smile:

Another man better than woman thread? Someone get the air freshener, its reeking of insecurity here.

That’s an NSer.

Is that why we have separated males and females in most sports, cause physical anatomy no longer matters? There are some sports women are better at and there are some sports men are better at.

Not really, they’re becoming more equal to men (in most western societies they’re completely equal) when it comes to employment, education chances etc. Which I’m fine with.

Women are smarter because they competed and lost for thousands of years? Wait what?

That is, ironically, the reason they don’t do it. Cause if one of them starts the war he knows the others will nuke his ass. So, nuclear weapons are actually a great weapon of prevention.
Eternal Savagery I like your style. Pretty awesome OP, will link this to feminists I know :evilfun:

You keep missing simple points.

The premise is actually women’s superiority over men, try to keep up.

“Sob it’s all wrong women should be my property and the world is evil … I am so strong and nobody knows it… sob”

Still at it, huh.

I guess it’s a calling.

FixedCross, this is not intended to be a sob/rant. I am disclosing very grave information here. People can be so ungrateful…

And 3Sum, thanks man - do share this with feminists; they need to know about this the most.

Thinking that you’re disclosing something to people who’ve already heard it a million times is a little dumb. I mean, you remember the last time you exposed us all to this? And the time before that? And before? And so on?

Everyone knows what you’re saying they just think it’s a little bland and repetitive and it’s all based on unfounded assertions.

Eternal Savagery,

[list][size=85]The female becomes subsumed within the superior force which is the male, therefore it is her mandatory duty to respect her master. If she deviates from his will, it is only natural that he discipline her with appropriate punishment. It is not to be frowned on if the man chooses to chain her up…[/size][/list:u]
…and, in like form, you are subsumed by more dominant power structures that have no need for your dead-end view of sex relations. Have you no respect for your masters? I have many doubts about the human race, but one thing I have faith in is that this shitty, impoverished “woman is man’s property” mentality is never going to appeal to more than a few frustrated souls. Why am I so confident about this? Every time your OP comes up, it’s the same soulless offering; your great vision of power is to have parental-like authority over the opposite sex. As a philosophy, it is a social and intellectual cul-de-sac and bears little if any nourishment for greatness. That is the only important argument against it. Think it over.

fuse only a few people would support the idea of not keeping slaves in ancient times, so? But even with that example I’m giving your argument too much credit because it’s a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Try again.