The Truth about Women.


She might be different from other women, but she’s still one i.e. she’s still retarded.

She thinks there is such a thing as “rights”. Though she makes a difference between human and natural/civic rights, she still believes in rights, which is quite feminine thing to do.

She is proud of her own independence, but what kind of independence is that if you are dependent on “rights”, which is to say, on social systems? She might be less dependent than other women, but from my point of view, she’s still dependent, and so not very likable, because stupid women at least want to obey their husbands, whereas girls of these sorts want to obey the State.

Good observation. You caught this too.

She mentions she has a job, but that’s still dependent on handouts from her employer.

Probably she has a job selling trinkets, no contribution to society there. Just creating value where value is none.

Is it possible to not be dependent on others? Without absolute power of your self and everything which affects that you need rights, or an axe - so to say.

I couldn’t watch the video after a minute, i get annoyed to easily. Is it retarded to find retarded people impossible to communicate with or listen too. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s not, but the difference is men tend to make contributions that actually improve the social and global condition, whilst women offer trinkets and inflated worth.

In the strict sense of the word, it is not, since all relation implies dependence. Nonetheless, there is a difference between being controlled and being in control. These are two distinct kinds of dependence/relation.

Do you expect the universe to take care of your needs? Do you think that the universe is already ordered or is supposed to be ordered?
Or do you think the universe is chaos and that it is you who creates order?

Diana – that’s her name apparently – may be financially independent but look at the way she thinks. Her ideal society is a democratic society . . . why democracy? why not aristocracy if she’s so independent?

When you develop a higher level of discipline, everyone with a lower level of discipline becomes a drag. You can’t help it, unless you deny yourself (and self-denial is what it really means to be dependent.)

Everyone seeks those who are sufficiently similar to them, this is a natural thing to do, and those who do not, these are self-denying hypocrites, and democracy is nothing but a community of self-denying hypocrites, a hypocritical, patched up, anarchy of cowards who are unable to endure social heterogeneity.

Someone loves democracy means someone is a self-denying, order-dependent hypocrite. And that’s precisely what Diana is and what is typical of women.


They [women] also stop men from being brutes and moderate situations in a calming and balancing manner. …when they are not doing the opposite :stuck_out_tongue: .

…but stronger womankind wouldn’t have the inferred weaknesses.


Being in control surely means others are being dependent/weak? E.g. If two people have control over the lever to a trap door, one is going down.

It gives me the means but i have to go collect what she provides [mother earth].
Not supposed to be ordered? Yet you say to create order? Your order and not someone else’s order?

Democracy ‘could’ be a means for many equal wills to share power? Or otherwise what? What gives you power to create order [assumedly includes others in that order] over others? especially if say there were no idiots left e.g. After your new world order has been around for a while.

If all were Spartans we’d be equal. So what then and how could that work with no helots?


Slavery is biological. To be a slave means to trap your excess energies instead of dissipating them.

I do not understand why some people wake up every morning and live and breathe debating gender related shit all day. It’s like some unexplainable obsession that just gets a hold of someone’s mind and forces them into this whole retarded line of thinking where any and all issues in the world are framed as, or centered around who acts like they have a penis and who acts like they have a vagina.


You see that as an observation? Well, sure it is. But it’s one based on bias not on honest reflection. It’s one belonging to the boy’s club.

Really? As far as I know,the rule of thumb for most employers basically all employers, is mutual reciprocation. A handout is not defined as something an employer gives for work done though a nice bonus or christmas party might on some level be considered a handout - even that though probably isnt. It’s given out of conscious awareness and gratitude for a job well done.

Her children might consider that as value – children are part of society you know - since she is being paid for selling those trinkets and earning money to support them possibly. True value is not always just in the thing itself since it is also subjective but in what it creates, its optimal consequences. Put your thinking caps on and take off your blinders.

Let’s say also that a man goes into that store and buys that/those so-called valueless trinkets (necklaces, bracelets) and brings them home and gives them to his wife and showing her gratitude, she wears them naked to bed… but not to sleep. lol
Would you say that there is any value in that? Would you not perhaps afterwards think of that trinket lady and want to thank her. :evilfun:

Stupid argument, really. Naked heifer’s have value only to their partners. A woman walking around with a necklace does not increase her value whatsoever. Unless you are from the ilk that women have only appearance value. I’m not even that sexist.

My observation on her being retarded is quite obvious. She blinks her eyes when she speaks and she generally seems to have trouble talking, or autistically and hormonally impaired. Thus…retarded.