Banning abortion, banning contraceptives, banning porn, and turning women into property will all serve to restore sanity to society, pretty much eliminate single-motherhood, and restore the birth rate to well above replacement.
>They are essentially a different type of children, and their purpose in life is to relieve men and be mothers. They need to be disciplined like children, and we should not allow them to have any control over men. Women in power does to a society what single motherhood does to offspring.
>Before civilization, one man reproduced for every seven women. 80% of women are attracted to only 20% of men, they rate the rest of men as being below average in terms of looks, while 50% of men are attracted to 50% of women and rate the other half of them as being below average in terms of looks.
>We hate sluts because only 20% of men can be promiscuous, as in having multiple sex partners within a small space of time, in the first place, while 80% of women can be promiscuous. Most of the women promiscuous men sleep with are considerably less attractive than them, while most of the men promiscuous women sleep with are considerably more attractive than them. The more men a woman is with, the less likely she is the get married and marriages will be shorter on average. Promiscuity changes the brain structure in women. Women naturally have a special place reserved for one man who is their mate. It is very hard to change the man in this place, but once it happens, a relationship is over. Promiscuous women essentially remove this spot from their brains. Men invented monogamy to make the sexual marketplace fairer for men. In monogamous societies, men are more satisfied, less violent, more productive, and more creative. That aspect of anxiety is eliminated from their lives.
>Women should be banned from most professions. Feminism was about getting women in the workforce and out of the household producing and raising children. They created feminism to double the workforce and cut the salaries to below half of what they previously were. Employers no longer had to pay men the money needed to support a household with a housewife and several children, and only the money needed to support themselves.
>Women will first be the property of their fathers before they become the property of their husbands. Fathers will be able to decide which men their daughters will marry. Women naturally want really shitty men for partners. Whenever there is a mass shooting, a lot of women get really wet and will beg the killer for sex and send him nude photos. Women subconsciously view skull crushing as a sign of masculinity. Men have much better judgment when it comes to deciding which men are fit for marriage and fatherhood.
>Women should be made to dress up. This makes the chance of a man who just wants to have sex to flirt with her in the first place, because she won’t be expressing her sexuality in the first place. This will also prevent men from thinking about sex as frequently and will give clarity to men when doing various activities around women.
>Men are the people who build societies. Testosterone is the God Particle. This is ancient wisdom. God created man in his image, and woman to be his companion. God came to Earth in the form of a man. Christians used to make sure their women wouldn’t become sluts and made sure they dressed up.
jewess? Are you that new that you dont know who Angie Varona is? FIlthy fucking newfag get lost from my 4chins
Liam Perry
With right like those, She's going to be a blimp when she's 38 years old.
Joseph Stewart
>Before civilization, one man reproduced for every seven women. 80% of women are attracted to only 20% of men No, stupid. Before civilization what women found attractive didn't matter. They fucked whoever raped them. The 80% of men who didn't fuck got killed by the surviving 20% of men who gangraped the women.
Brandon Thompson
yes I agree women should be relieved of all decision making above the level of sandwich making. also hang all faggots and burn trannies and kikes.
Gavin Ross
If you hadn't been taken over by the Germans in a weekend women wouldn't have needed to replace the actual men it took to liberate your worthless since Napolean's time asses. But lets not forget your many contributions to the world since ww2, like defending communism, feminism, and being pretensions fags who lose wars to Algerians.
Luis Murphy
Thought for sure this was going to be a shark attack or something. Bummer.
thats an easy 8.5/10 you just cant see yourself with her and it hurts
Ryder Gutierrez
Yeah, that's known as projection. Clean your room and go outside. Her body is mediocre and she's got the face of a drowned rat. White knight HARDER, summerfag
Carson Williams
Based and frogpilled
Noah Martinez
You might as well KYS now because you know it will never happen. And it's stupid af. Here's a better approach.
The long term solution, which is also the only solution, is to eliminate the fundamental inequality between the sexes, as in this case, to make it so that the social roles and sexual desires become more equalized on average between them. That is, in the long term, men need to desire sex less and become less aggressive, while women need to desire sex more and become less submissive. To achieve that outcome, the state can take certain measures to promote gender equality without seeming too heavy-handed or authoritarian. Gender related stigmas have to be fought and gender-neutral outcomes encouraged, but not necessarily though setting quotas everywhere. Although, if quotas are to be used, they should encourage female participation in male areas of work as much as male participation in traditional female areas. And of course, it must be thoroughly explained to everyone why these measures are being taken, what the expected outcome is, and what progress is being made to achieve it. There should be regular public reviews of the program to look at the results and make necessary adjustments.
In the short run, to appease the "incels", the state can take certain stop-gap measures in order to reduce the problem. For those incels who only really want a girlfriend so they would have a hole to fuck and a womb to reproduce, for them the development of sex-robots and artificial wombs should be expedited, but that is obviously a very small part of a bigger problem. Other than that, prostitution not only has to be fully legalized and regulated, but more than that - encouraged and even subsidized by the state. If the state subsidizes and promotes prostitution, it essentially gives every "incel" an ability to regularly satisfy their sexual needs at a very affordable cost to themselves and without the heavy stigma that currently goes with it for both parties.
That alone would probably do a lot to reduce the impact of the problem. But what of romantic relationships? There does already exist such a phenomenon as "paid girlfriends" and even brides, obviously it doesn't do much to substitute for a real relationship. Yet, many arrangements like these last for many years and seem to leave both parties reasonably satisfied with their decision, about as satisfied as many "normal couples" who go through breakups after a few years of cohabitation. If so, why not encourage that as well? Have a section of the federal budget, perhaps somewhere under the Department of Health and Human Services, dedicated specifically to subsidizing "paid cohabitation". I.e., any person (typically a girl, but could be anyone) who wants to sign such a contract with her prospective mate would not only receive money from him, but also from the government, which would make that sort of arrangement a lot more attractive than it would be otherwise and also cheaper for the guy she'll be living with. Then of course, do what you can to de-stigmatize such arrangements and make them socially acceptable. Essentially, what is it if not a type of job, like any job, which provides a service to an individual who needs it? If it is already okay to be a secretary, a maid, a hooker, and an escort, why would it not okay to play all four of those roles at once for a given individual? If the compensation is adequate, there shouldn't be anything inherently humiliating about that, on the contrary, a person who is successful at that kind of job proves their attractiveness, compassion, friendliness, conflict-resolution, and overall social skill that is above what most other people can boast about. Likewise, if it is considered okay to hire a secretary, a maid, a hooker, and an escort, why is it not okay to hire someone who fulfills all those functions at the same time?
Jacob Taylor
Many men who are not even incels at all may prefer this option simply because they don't really have the time and energy to invest in a proper relationship, but they still want some benefits of a relationship, and are thus willing to pay money to make up for their lack of attention that a proper girlfriend might need. If it's a type of arrangement that actually suits both parties and fulfils their needs, there's no reason why anyone should think badly of it. Not only would this program help to address the incel problem specifically, but could even generally reduce the amount of single men as well as women. And by encouraging men and women to live together and interact, it would help them develop proper social skills, attain better understanding of the other gender, and generally be less bitter and hostile to the world than they would be otherwise, which would make them better people overall and help them to actually attain real love if they happen to come across it. Essentially it is the same reasoning as any other type of social security that currently exists, except this one is for relationships. As an further added bonus, there is always a potential that a "paid cohabitation" arrangement could actually result in a deeper bond in some time. After all, there used to be a time when most marriages were arranged marriages and had nothing to do with love, and yet a lot of people were happy enough with such arrangements and learned to love their spouse in time. Nothing says that it can't happen in the subsidized cohabitation arrangement.
At least it's a bit less stupid than the constant "turn women into property" circlejirk that does nothing except raising the next generation of eliot rogers.
I'd prefer to see more people shoot up Youtube headquarters than sororities, but to each their own.
Advice for incels. Stop shitposting 24 hours a day and leave your house. Take care of yourself, good diet, sun and lifting. No excuses. Looks are important. Concentrade on self development, career/business/hustle (income). Dont put pussy on the pedestal, dont beta orbit, dont chase girls. As far as books, read Bronze Age Mindset by Bronze Age Pervert, Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi and 3% Man by Corey Wayne.
actually the only thing you have to do is ban contraceptives. women with children are inherently reliant on men
Aiden Bailey
>Her body is mediocre 50% of americans are overweight. +30% are obese. She is not mediocre by any real definition.
Bentley Williams
Keep posting more please!
Michael Anderson
>50% of americans are overweight. >+30% are obese. You know that's mostly Niggers and Spics right? I'm not saying there aren't fat white people because there are. But percentages not adjusted for race are disingenuous.
Ayden Russell
>sources and links
why do people do this thing where they ask for this
you'd have to ask for sources and links to whatever was sourced and linked. and sources and links to whatever THAT sourced and linked. and what makes you think that 'truth you can trust' is the final source and link? it's not. it's just some other asshole, like the one you're reading now.
you're really just asking to be absolved of the responsibility of thinking for yourself when you say 'source and links' on fucking social studies, maybe if you wanted the atomic density of compound X under Y bars of atmospheric pressure you'd have a reason to do this janky 'muh source?' shit, because it's not the kind of thing that people get riled up about. no one particularly cares how much compound X weighs, they're not trying to lie to you about it.
'sources' don't mean jack shit, and honestly, you are a complete brainlet if thats your fucking response to anything. you're just asking if someone else has the same opinion? well fucking probably, yeah.
you're really just trying to reference if this opinion is approved by someone you consider an authority figure. don't you feel like a sleazy hypocrite who's putting on a big act when you do this whole 3 ring circus of pretending like you're a fucking analytical social science nerd on some fucking website?
get real... just use your fucking head instead of the internet.
>women should be controlled! >"um excuse me what? sources and links? i need to analyze the study data proving this OBKJECTIVELY"
