I’ve been thinking there’s some credence to the idea that women don’t care about people like men do

I’ve been thinking there’s some credence to the idea that women don’t care about people like men do.

Honestly, the only exception I met to this rule was a polyamorous feminist woman, someone who made it an intention to live by the same rules as men.

Think about it, the average woman is so catty with peers, and so quick to dismiss her exes as though they became worthless and expired.

This sentiment also applies to males who never learn how to be men. I see a lot of young males doing the same shitty things women were previously more known for, such as ‘ghosting’.

Have I just had bad luck with people in general, or is it true that manliness imparts certain values that women and manchildren typically don’t posses?

If women really don’t care about people as much as men, the implications of that might be pretty severe.

Attached: 89E0577D-03A8-48E9-BF63-56B306B19489.png (1201x1201, 62K)

what happened that made you think this way?

Being a woman is more dangerous than being a man, so they are more cautious when it comes to others. That made stuff like ghosting more permissible, they can just say the other person is weird and therefore dangerous, and that becomes a slippery slope; the ghoster is always the victim, to a ghoster.

Really though this has nothing to do with gender. Most humans are selfish stupid pieces of shit, incels/redpill communities use arbitrary examples of callous behaviour to arbitrarily hate half the species. It's just another example of stupid as fuck behaviour.

You can see whatever patterns in groups of people you want to. You can find humans with positive values such as intelligence and kindness, you just have to work for it if you don't come from that kind of background and be prepared to hit a few duds, because it's easier to fake than to genuinely embody positive values. Like minded people cluster together. Immoral self hating pieces of shit will be surrounded by each other, and if you stay in circles like that you will begin to act like that too. Find your people.

i've had similar thoughts from the other side lately. that's after a long time thinking more along the lines of what you've laid out here though. terrible, horrible, godawful people abound unfortunately and they don't know how to stick to their own kind. that much is obvious and easy enough to see but doesn't fully explain what's going on. there's something fundamentally different in what "caring for people" is regarding men and women, i'm almost certain of that much. still yet to suss out the exact distinctions though.

I'm a guy and I ghost people sometimes.

Aristotle, History of Animals, Book IX: "Wherefore women are more compassionate and more readily made to weep, more jealous and querulous, founder of the railing, and more contentious. The female also is more subject to depression of spirits and despair than the male. She is also more shameless and false, more readily deceived, and more mindful of injury, more watchful, more idle, and on the whole less excitable than the male. On the contrary, the male is more ready to help, and, as it has been said, braver than the female; and even in malaria, if the sepia is struck with a trident, the male comes to help the female, but the female makes her escape if the male is struck."

I think you're just sexist.

I feel the complete opposite, women have often really cared about me. Men are only like "yah well bye" when I have some problem.

This is not asking for advice. You have already decided this is your philosophy, you just want to find people to agree with you on here. Take your crap to a board that wants it, Jow Forums is not the place.

>You’re clearly projecting.

What? Your post doesn't have a question. You are not asking for advice, you are trying to start a debate. Wrong board for that, mate.

Women care about what men can do for them. They abide by Briffault's law:
>The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

Corollaries:
>Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

>Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

>A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

I'm also posting pic related because it is an important read for every men.

Attached: the_woman.png (1919x5492, 581K)

wtf this got moved to r9k and is still alive?

can you distill this? it seems like something written by a serial killer.

What's wrong with ghosting? The plausible deniability is a lot gentler on people's egos than a stark "I'm done with you".

>polyamorous feminist woman

let me guess, she has danger hair? those bitches pretend well. you aren't too bright

There is a lot in it.
It talks about female nature in general, how they try to shroud themselves with mistique to hide their lack of depht, etc. It also details the nature of the interactions between women and the different kinds of men they associate with (the different kinds of beta and the alpha).
There is much more though.
If you read the parts that are bolded, you might get the gist.