Robots in a nutshell

How do I become a male feminist? Where do I start?

castrate yourself, and you're 90% of the way there

Wrong. If you'd ever talked with a social butterfly man about women you'd see they have the exact same option approach as you declare the average robot has. The only difference is that when they move onto another female they will after probing a few find one who'll let them have a shag. Most robots don't even try again since their self-esteem never got built up with positive experiences (or any experiences at all) with the opposite gender, or just continue to recieve a bucket on their head.

Gynocide + Robowaifus?

'toxic masculinity' lacks an actionable definition and as result is just another boogeyman

no very trendy for normies to make fun of male feminist now.

thanks guys i've seen the error in my ways and am now proceeding on planning my own shooting in which i will hunt down females exclusively for what they've done to me

I've literally never heard an adequate explanation of what "toxic masculinity" is or how it differs from non-toxic masculinity

if it's not a chad it's toxic

From what I've read "toxic masculinity" is basically "let boys be pussies, never try to toughen them up that way (((we))) [females] can walk all over them and they won't protest

toxic masculinity is anything men do/feel they should do because of how biology has shaped Humanity. SJWs are basically denying the existence of sexual dimorphism in Humans. Even though there is a literal mound of evidence from a thousand different fields of study that say otherwise, SJWs don't care because it goes against their narrow minded world view. Essentially, SJWs want men to stop being men which is fucking retarded

I don't buy into third-wave corporate capitalist feminism, but the term has become loaded down with dogshit nonsense it was never meant to be bearing.
Toxic masculinity's intended definition is a series of expectations of being essentially Chad rather than behaviors done by the men. The demand that a man never express sadness, never long for compliments, always be totally okay living solo, always be having sex with three virgin women per day at age 18, never establish a vulnerably loving relationship with family or with other people in general, these would be considered aspects of toxic masculinity. The idea is that men should honestly be able to get by the way women do in various situations if they really want to. People say that women can basically just passively exist and get sex thrown in their direction and have a fulfilling life where they're taken care of because the expectation that men should not and cannot do that, and that men should be doing the providing.
The term got hijacked by a bunch of shit-slinging retarded vloggers led by Anita Sarkeesian to describe stuff that men do in response to toxic masculinity as toxic masculinity itself. The idea became that masculine people were toxic, rather than the expectational framework of masculinity being toxic. It basically spoiled the entire word and I hate that, because men shouldn't be expected to always be some Chad-looking powerhouse and that expectation is legitimately harmful.

Pretty much agreed, jerking off about feminism on internet isn`t really the best answer...

What you're saying is true, but the thing is it doesn't matter for a few reason:
>women aren't attracted to men who don't display toxic masculinity. They say they are but they are NOT
>the reason these roles exist, is because females are more valuable than us, and it really makes me sad but it's true. They have the right to be passive and just be handed shit, that's literally how it works in all species. The males have to bring nuptial gifts and do the little dance, the female selects.
Toxic masculinity can't end until women stop rewarding the behavior (which they wont, they are ubiquitously hypocritical) and if men someone became as biologically valuable as women.
Neither of these things are going to happen. Women will continue to complain about "toxic masculinity" while only fucking chads and be hypocrites, and men will continue to have to destroy their true selves and mold ourselves to what women want in order to get relationships.
Women rule it all, and can even get away with pretending that they don't.

Oh fuck off with your bullshit onion wisdom. You can behave however the hell you want as long as you're 6'3 and ripped.

Being a feminist isn't going to get you a gf but being an anti-feminist will keep you from getting one.

(((Society)))
Call them with their true name.

I think reducing humanity to some comparison with animals isn't really a good idea, and while you're correct that that's the way of nature, I don't think that necessarily makes it good, and more importantly, necessarily makes us beholden to it.
Hazardous and dangerous parts of nature should honestly be purged from civilization. We try to not have tribe wars (and consider gang turf wars that express the tribal warfare urge to be bad), we try not to have dangerous predators wandering around, we try to have attached breeding pairs, unlike a lot of nature. It's pretty clear by now that having these lofty expectations on men is dangerous and painful, and results in isolation, loss of valuable input for society, and even violence, very directly. And you're right, it's not solely the responsibility of men to fix that. Both women and conventionally successful men need to learn how to not apply these arbitrary, insanely outdated expectations to men, and men who have been cast out by the bullshit system need to be given more options to take to rejoin things.
It's worked out for me, at least. I'm not much of a Chad (I look like Harry Potter and I'm like 5'9) but I've had a share of relationships that were so vastly better when my partner and I both consciously sort of abstained from some of those traditional expectations. There's a lot of women who enjoy the average needs of a robot, when they're given the right space and context to do it, and where they look at their own expectations and needs and figure out what fulfills them most.

The argument you present sounds reasonable but is in fact the typical cover story tactic sjws use as a defense. While I agree with the ideas of men should be able to express emotion without it being a pariah, as all Humans are freely entitled to, was it ever really a problem? At any point were men simply prohibited from being expressive with emotions? Or that chad style overly aggressive/assertive males weren't detested? No one likes a blowhard and history doesn't indicate that this disdain for such behavior is recent. As for the idea that "men should be able to get sex from passive existence" as women do (at least as you claim) is ridiculous. Sex should neither be free nor expensive, as women have demonstrated. The reason they can pull this bullshit is that they're the aesthetic sex and have evolved to be the sexual selectors as a result. There is not a single woman on the planet advocating for men to have easier access to sex. Women hold on to the ability to experience it (relatively) freely and keep it expensive for men. THAT is the root of a great deal of the social problems which people (both men and women) in western civilizations now experience.

I like your statement that the framework of expectation is a real problem, not the masculine behavior itself. I find that fairly agreeable. I don't personally consider it to be the root idea of what toxic masculinity entails though. In practice it's used exclusively by SJWs and their ilk to justify the removal of males and masculinity from their worldview.

We don't exactly put this sort of thing in history books, but I think it's reasonable if you want to assume that the love for the Dominating Emotionless Alpha Chad is a more recent thing. Whether or not it's recent, we can agree mutually that it's bad, and the historical context isn't relevant.
I also respect that assertion about sex. That's more of a discussion about the role of sex in a society, whereas my argument is more that men should have the sexual options women have, whatever those options may be. If you think neither men nor women should have that on the table... Eh, I disagree, but that's sort of an issue that needs to be on the table after more is done to fix the current problems.
I don't think you're right that there's no women advocating for easier access to sex, or at least, you're not right in the technical interpretation of your writing. I've been in a couple relationships with women who didn't really want to deal with traditional Chad bullshit and more wanted a source of emotional stability, creative inspiration, and less masculine affection, which are all things a lot of robots can give.
I mean, you're right that they're not exactly marching in the streets demanding free government-mandated gf, but rather just having a different set of expectations of men and passively spreading them is a reasonable thing.
You're right that a bunch of SJWs use it for bullshit to shout down anyone who points out their flaws, you'll get no argument from me about that.

It doeesn't matter user. Women don't want to do it, and as they continue to be able to provide for themselves they'll want it even less. They'll form harems and share chad which they are fine with, while continuing to chant "YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX. YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO WOMEN'S BODIES. YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO FAMILIES" and all other feminist talking points.
It;s literally 100% women's responsibility to end this but, like everything else, they don't actually want to so they'll continue to say it's men's fault and do nothing while the situation continues to slip into disorder.

>I think reducing humanity to some comparison with animals isn't really a good idea
I think refusing to compare humans to animals is fucking delusional.

>Hazardous and dangerous parts of nature should honestly be purged from civilization.
They can't be. Not in their entirety. Women will continue to select Chads, and thus chads will be the standard.

>We try to not have tribe wars (and consider gang turf wars that express the tribal warfare urge to be bad), we try not to have dangerous predators wandering around, we try to have attached breeding pairs, unlike a lot of nature.
We try but we fail. These are all endemic to humanity, and despite the wanton destruction they might cause in the short term, they are ultimately the reasons we survived this far. Evil is ephemeral, and chaos is eternal.

>It's pretty clear by now that having these lofty expectations on men is dangerous and painful, and results in isolation, loss of valuable input for society, and even violence, very directly.
What do you propose to do to change this?

>And you're right, it's not solely the responsibility of men to fix that.
It's entirely the responsibility of women to fix that. They select sexual partners, and that's thr real problem. Deprive them of their ability to do so, and their parents can choose for them, selecting mates that have more societally beneficial traits.

>I'm not much of a Chad (I look like Harry Potter and I'm like 5'9) but I've had a share of relationships that were so vastly better when my partner and I both consciously sort of abstained from some of those traditional expectations.
Well, I'm comparatively a Chad and I've benefited from such experiences in my relationships.

There's a lot of women who enjoy the average needs of a robot,
No there aren't.

Attached: IMG_0407.jpg (901x889, 128K)

I would say a fair chunk of responsibility lies with the Chads as well. Conventionally attractive and conventionally successful males have a hand in this, and they shouldn't have their responsibility for the current state of affairs washed out.
You're right that a lot of this rests on women, and you're right that a lot of them are fucking up doing it, especially the feminists. It's easier to buy into a wave of bullshit nonsense corporate-capitalist feminism than to actually look at the issues of real toxic masculinity. But there's a few out there who don't, and who reconsider their own needs and wants and actually try out seeking a more emotionally fulfilling relationship, and I've had a lot of really good relationships with them.

You're literally saying they should cut their legs and acid their own face as a punishment for being born lucky.
Women are solely responsible for all this.

Stop comparing it to capitalism user. This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.
It's only under capitalism that non-chad men can get with women. Under a communistic rule, men have literally no way to show superiority over other men. Women are biologically hypergamous, they select for the absolute best male they can get, and because of how reproduction works, they have no problem all sharing one male:
psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
In egalitarian-communistic hunter gatherer societies, SUPER harems were the norm.
It's only under strong, capitalistic patriarchal rule that all men have equality in dating.
We want to EXTEND capitalism and civilization. Patriarchy is synonymous with civilization and male happiness.
A true communist world would literally (I use this term in it's actual definition, not in the common way) have 90% of men exterminated.

Best of luck. Be sure to wear boots. Shells can make you trip.

Bit hostile there, man. Saying that a problem is impossible to fix doesn't really progress us towards a solution. And your proposed solution of having parents be responsible for selecting partners is really not a good idea, since parents will just use the same arbitrary, stupid set of standards when picking the partners for their girls. Imagine trying to impress a girl, and now imagine trying to impress a financially stable woman using standards from fifty years ago. If you wanted parents educated more for this, it would wind up being something probably better suited to educating women.
If I'm wrong then the effort to make a more mature approach to this won't make any more problems. If I'm right then it could push us more towards solutions. I don't really see what political benefit pessimism has to give. And the proposed solution is really straightforward. A combination of legislated educational approaches in school to show women the dangers to them of participating in the nonsense expectations so they can make the decisions they really ought to, combined with encouraging but not requiring media-makers to ease back on society-shaping media that reinforces the nonsense expectations, and creating more demand for media that puts more healthy and personal expectations on the general mind.

>You're literally saying they should cut their legs and acid their own face as a punishment for being born lucky.
You must have a really weird browser glitch because I never typed that.
Conventionally successful and conventionally attractive men often abuse other men when those men don't meet the arbitrary expectations of the Dominating Emotionless Alpha Chad and trying to say otherwise on Jow Forums is kind of silly.

Profit-driven feminism isn't very good. I'm not really here to talk about capitalism in general, but capitalistic feminism is just tainted too badly. It's too profitable to focus on shit that doesn't matter and not profitable to focus on the shit that does matter.

>Under a communistic rule, men have literally no way to show superiority over other men
earning power is not the sole selection criteria for women

No, attractiveness and height are.
Under communism, those are now the only 2 things. Women will desire to all have CHADS seed, while being freinds (genuine friends but still just friends) with other males while they all raise the children as a community.
essentially, a wolf pack or elephant herd or some other thing where only the alpha male gets to breed, and all other males and females have to raise the young. This is what women actually want.

Feminism isn't the answer whatsoever. The answer is strict patriarchal rule, and complete destruction of feminism.
Under patriarchal rule, monogamy is the norm, men and women raise families together, etc.
Under matriarchy, as we're seeing happen now and what we know happened in the past, happens.

>The answer is strict patriarchal rule
Why? That doesn't make sense to me. Giving all the power to the Chads isn't going to make the Chads trickle down the sex to everyone else.

That's MATRIARCHAL rule. That's not what happens under patriarchal rule.
Under patriarchy, all men are given a woman, chad takes a little extra for himself but nothing crazy, and everyone gets a family. Think about the west up until feminism. Think about Asian patriarchy, etc.
It's under WOMEN'S rule that Chad is given all the power (because women want males to compete and only reward the alpha, like in the wild). The fact that we're conscious logical intelligent animals doesn't mean we aren't still animals. It's not reasonable to expect women to not act like this when they're given rights, so the solution is to simply not allow them to have those rights that they misuse.

It's not a new behavior is what I was saying. It's been detested to be arrogant forever. Unless you have a high place of authority, people tend not to put up with it.
As for the sex assertion we have a lot of common ground. Men and women should have ample options, but it should neither be too easy to get nor obscenely difficult to obtain (as it is now for most men)

I think that women tend to bail on chads for sex as they gain the valuable experience of learning that the chadiest chads are not quality providers and lack things women look for in the long term. Once they learn this, they tend to move on because they have needs that aren't being met.
That is where robots can be of good emotional support or at least have the opportunity to do so.
The lack of palpable action in regards to spreading the idea of looking past the narrow framework is really hindering the ability of robots to gain upward social mobility because while others (such as us) agree it's reasonable and well minded, SJWs are the only ones being vocal and have hijacked the term (as we have also agreed upon)
I must say, I have really enjoyed this discussion.

>Bit hostile there, man.
Good. Now you know who you're fucking with.

>Saying that a problem is impossible to fix doesn't really progress us towards a solution.
There isn't a solution. Best we can do is cope with what we've been dealt.

>And your proposed solution of having parents be responsible for selecting partners is really not a good idea, since parents will just use the same arbitrary, stupid set of standards when picking the partners for their girls.
No they won't. An 18 year old girl is going to select who's tallest and has the best cock, sampling her way to her decision. Parents will decide depending on how stable, intelligent and rich a suitor is. That's something a beta can work towards.

>Imagine trying to impress a girl, and now imagine trying to impress a financially stable woman using standards from fifty years ago.
She wouldn't be financially stable. She'd be reliant on her family for that.

>If I'm wrong then the effort to make a more mature approach to this won't make any more problems.
You won't make any more problems because you don't have any solution, you dip. You've given nothing but vague platitudes so far.

>I don't really see what political benefit pessimism has to give.
It's not pessimism, it's realism. White men have spent enough times with their heads up in the clouds. Time to wake up and take action.

>And the proposed solution is really straightforward. A combination of legislated educational approaches in school to show women the dangers to them of participating in the nonsense expectations so they can make the decisions they really ought to, combined with encouraging but not requiring media-makers to ease back on society-shaping media that reinforces the nonsense expectations, and creating more demand for media that puts more healthy and personal expectations on the general mind.
Listen to me, boy. That will NEVER, happen with women and minorities in charge. NEVER.
These selfish cunts controll the narrative to normalfags.

Attached: IMG_0311.gif (680x384, 242K)

Why would giving all the power to conventionally attractive and conventionally successful men result in that sort of thing? How would that mean all men are given a women? Why wouldn't they just take more women?

You realize shit like white knighting is included in toxic masculinity, right? As well as a bunch of shit feminism champions. It essentially just means "trying too hard", but of course certain twats try to twist it to cover all of masculinity, in part because they're insecure about their OWN shortcomings in that area.

First of all, patriarchy IS NOT rule by conventionally attractive men, you're still not getting this. That's MATRIARCHY. Patriarchy is rule by all men, at the (admittedly oppressive) expense of women. ALL men work together to keep certain masculine standards and keep society going, and in exchange are all given a woman to bear his seed. The top men don't try to take too much, because the other men will kill them, and they also don't even need it.
This isn't a hypothetical, we have examples of patriarchies everywhere and it was the norm in the west until feminism rose and started destroying everything.

>Why would giving all the power to conventionally attractive and conventionally successful men result in that sort of thing?
It wouldn't give all of the power to such men, it would just give less power to women and more to their fathers.

>How would that mean all men are given a women?
It wouldn't, but they would available to a larger group of men.

>Why wouldn't they just take more women?
Because they'd be forced to stay married to one each until death.

Because their religions literally and explicitly forbid doing that. Even where its not forbidden, like in Islam, you still just dont see it happening.

Just because something has been awful for a long time doesn't mean it has to be awful forever. We've cured all sorts of diseases and stopped all sorts of awful aspects of society, or at the very least we've established spaces where those are gone. I think it wouldn't be impossible to call this another problem we can deal with.
You're right that a lot of girls go to chad first and then sort of turn around and don't want to do that again. I think that adjusting the expectation initially can keep them from having the learning stage of having to figure out they're not matching their own expectations with Chads.
I'm glad you've enjoyed the chat, though. I always enjoy finding new opportunities to show people fresh ways to be incredibly disappointed in SJWs and modern feminism.

>family guy gifs
Wow, you really weren't worth talking to in the first place huh.

Family guy is good, too.

What an absolute waste of trips.

Religions explicitly forbid pedophilia and tons of priests and major church officials still do it.

Top kek dude
Of all the things to get mad about
More of a.... rick and morty fan, perhaps?

>It wouldn't give all of the power to such men, it would just give less power to women and more to their fathers.
But the most successful men decide the standards of the least successful. This is how a lot of chads set up these insane self-expectations people have.
>Because they'd be forced to stay married to one each until death.
Forced by who?

I don't watch television you dumb NPC.

Most muslim countries are hardcore patriarchies. Why should we adopt the techniques that failed there?

I had to look up what toxic masculinity meant and I think I understand now. In short

Toxic masculine traits include:
>Social dominance leading up to misogyny and homophobia, promoting violence, domestic abuse and sexual assault
>Total self-reliance and the stifling of one's emotions
>Is characteristic of American prisons
>Normalizes schoolhouse bullying and violence as "boys will be boys"

Non-toxic masculine traits:
>Devotion to work
>Pride in sports
>Providing for one's family
From what I understand, it's a poorly named way of describing an overly guarded violent asshole. I think it's so poorly named that it's actually dangerous to use, it's the kinda word where the name precedes the definition, to the point that it can mean anything and everything about men the user of the word doesn't quite like in the moment. It could even describe everything that makes a man not a woman, if the user so chose.

The definition needs a new word and that word needs to kill "toxic masculinity", this term, in its name alone, could destroy what it means to be a man.

Who says this is what made them into shitholes and not other characteristics like their outwardly violent mantras and progressively more extremist obsession with "true muslimhood"

Strongly agreed. A better word could do a whole lot of good for the issue.

Not all rapists are male feminists, user, but all male feminists are rapists, you can do better than that.

>But the most successful men decide the standards of the least successful. This is how a lot of chads set up these insane self-expectations people have.
Chads
The Chads didn't set up those distinctions to begin with. The women did when they gained the ability to choose.

>Forced by who?
The government, religion. Take your pick. The hypergamous will be punished for any transgressions against their families.

Attached: IMG_0400.png (200x194, 57K)

What are the better examples of patriarchal highly successful societies?

FAILED? Are you serious? Islam is the fastest growing religion by a long shot and Muslims are only increasing in power now that the west is falling.

Every great empire in history

They all fell apart after a while, though, didn't they?

Yes, as soon as they started accepting matriarchal ideas. Funny how that works innit?

After they gave more power to women, no?

Cite some examples?

>Yes, as soon as they started accepting matriarchal ideas.
>implying
Rome fell due to it stretching itself thin.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html

That's a restatement, not an elaboration of what you said. Is the appeal to authority the counter-argument? I don't know this man and I don't know why I should.

>That's a restatement, not an elaboration of what you said
No it isn't. Being a faggot is matriarchal.

I'm skeptical about one random professor being accurate compared to the whole of modern study on the topic.
>Being a faggot is matriarchal.
???????