For most of human history, the natural evolutionary order went something like this: Men loved women more than women loved men while women needed men more than men needed women. In other words, male love was predominantly rooted in a fundamental and unchanging passion for the female body. Female love, on the other hand, was predominantly rooted in economic need. In modern times, however, this dynamic enables women to use government power and technology to devalue, downsize, and discard husbands and fathers in ways which can be cruel and damaging to society.
Anyone who still denies this fundamental difference between men and women is naive beyond belief. All of the evidence obviously points to these fundamental truths. Men are rejected ten times more than women. Women end the majority of romantic relationships (in matters of dating and in matters of divorce). There is no female equivalent to the heroic stories of men killing dragons to save female virgins. Female fragility inspires male sacrifice while male fragility inspires female abandonment. The list goes on and on and on. It’s not just that women don’t prove love through sacrifice (in relation to adult men), it’s that they won’t even pretend to express such passions in their art, films, and literature as a matter of superficial virtue signaling.
The fact of the matter is that men simply love women more than women love men. This is not a social construct. It’s a biological reality. This is why men mourn harder than women mourn when their spouses die. This is why female tears inspire male love and sacrifice while male tears frighten women. This is why men are literally more likely to kill themselves after divorce. And, however ironically, this one sided form of passion is one of the reasons men are more likely to kill women than women are to kill men. Anyone who fails to understand why that might be the case is advertising to the world just how little they know about human nature.
If none of this were true, there would be legions of women raising their voices, saying, “We can marry down in class, income, and education! We would never dream of using government and technology to downsize, devalue, and discard men! Women love men just as much as men love women! And women need men just as much as men need women!”. Of course, this is not the case. Women, by and large, simply shrug and say, “Yeah, I guess men do love women more than women love men. Oh well!”
Obviously, men’s focus is on women, and women’s focus is on children. This is why men love women more than women love men. And this is why women are more likely to have a utilitarian “means to an ends” based understanding of men’s role in relation to the family. That’s also why women are more likely to try to take children away from their fathers than men are to take children away from their mothers. Do people really think that’s purely a coincidence? Purely a matter of social construct? And before anyone even dares to blame “the government” for this problem: Governments don’t control women. Women control governments.
When men get primary control of either religion or government, men tend to enforce family values. Premarital chastity, lifelong monogamy, the sanctity of the unborn, lifelong marriage, religious ideals focussed on someone for everyone, fatherhood, a man in every child’s home, restrictions on government overreach . . . When women get government power, they use it to take children away from their fathers, while literally replacing husbands and fathers with government programs and technology, in addition to radically normalizing single motherhood as a heroic ideal. And women do this all while conspiring with predatory men who wish to weaponize female sociopathy against men of lower status. If any of you still think that’s “purely social construct,” and not a fundamental expression of female evil, then please do the world a favor and stop talking about things which you clearly do not understand.
A small portion of elite predatory men and a large portion of women have a tendency to weaponize female sexual leverage against the average man by making it a taboo to even discuss these concerns in the first place. And we all know why that is. Anyone who denies this merely helps to prove the point. Such denials are precisely what one would expect from a society whose ancient ancestry was in fact rooted in the 80/20 rule.
Men view the world as a means of acquiring a woman. Women view men as a means of acquiring the world. Women are seen as ends. Men are seen as means. The person who is defined as the “means to an end” will always be in a more precarious position. That’s why they call it “precarious masculinity.” This is why women need to be taught to submit to male authority. Otherwise, women have a tendency to treat men as potentially disposable machines by replacing fathers and husbands with government and technology. If people haven’t figured this out by now, they know nothing about human nature.
Not only do we have tons of evidence spanning thousands of years backing the argument that men love women more than women love men, it’s also just inherently logical. Why, precisely, would women have evolved to love men as much as men love women? If love is measured in sacrifice, what would the female’s sacrificial motive be in relation to adult males? And what possible evolutionary purpose could it have served? Men are biologically wired for hypogamy (the opposite of hypergamy) while women generally show no inclination towards hypogamy. What does that tell you about the female capacity for love if we are to measure love by a metric of sacrifice?
I once heard someone say, “Men don’t love women more than women love men! Furthermore, men love other men just as much as men love women! For example, men have often fought wars as servants of a male God!”. Leave it to our modern day academics to somehow try to portray men killing men, by the millions, all while driven by primordial desires for the acquisition of women and resources, as an act of “male on male love.” I don’t really care what your spiritual figurehead is under such circumstances. The behaviors speak for themselves.
Occasionally we run into particularly psychotic feminists who say things like, “If women don’t love men as much as men love women, and that lack of love is rooted in evolutionary psychology (as you yourself explained), then doesn’t that mean women are in no way to blame for their incapacity to love men as much as men love women?”. This is what is known as the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural, that doesn’t make it good. For example, rape, war, and murder are all somewhat natural. That doesn’t mean we should tell men to surrender to the whims of their worst possible selves. The same also goes for women. And for women, one of the greatest evils a woman can inflict upon her society is the refusal to adequately love men and children.
The fact that this is even a debate shows us how demonstrably stupid our society has become. To ignore not only biological realities, but also, every day proof, readily observable in our every day lives, reveals not only a lack of book smarts, but also, a lack of street smarts as well. Men are the competitors and women are the choosers (broadly speaking). Any damned fool who says, “Women compete too!” is pretending to be ignorant of the fact that the slope for male competition is obviously steeper than it is for women.
The problem lies in women’s inability to comprehend love as a metric of sacrifice in relation to men. If women truly love men, prove it. Prove that women love men by sacrificing for men. How much is a woman willing to sacrifice for a man? Is she willing to buy a man? Is she willing to risk life and limb for a man? Do women even fantasize about such things? Would women like to write literature about heroic women who save fragile and needful men? And if the answer is that women are not willing to truly sacrifice in order to earn a man . . . Then can we really call that love? Isn’t love measured in sacrifice? And if love isn’t measured in sacrifice, then what the hell is love measured by? Cold blooded power mongering and sociopathic opportunism? Is that the type of world people want to live in?
If women are truly unwilling to play the sacrificial hypogamous role, in relation to men, then aren’t they implicitly admitting that they really have no moral right to be competing against men while acting as surrogate men in our educational and economic institutions? It’s vulgar and malicious to play both sides of that coin. Being dishonestly lectured by the very people who are engaging in such behaviors in the first place is most certainly a recipe for profound contempt. And if profound contempt is what women are going for, they are certainly earning it from an ever increasing portion of men (and for good reason too). For all of these reasons, the idea of “female liberation” has always been a stupid, toxic, and fundamentally doomed concept. Liberating women from men makes about as much sense as liberating one’s heart from one’s brain.
I am endlessly amazed by the outright idiocy of our current era. Even if we could somehow teach men to love women less, this would not lead us to higher ground. This would merely entice women to further devalue men as “useless” while using government and technology to further replace husbands and fathers. Look at the blacks: a 73% illegitimacy rate, fatherlessness, high levels of male fatalities . . . And even then, they show no sign of turning things around. Things could literally get that bad for everyone (whites, latinos, etc), and even then, our women wouldn’t turn the pendulum around and attempt to push it in the other direction. There is no bottom to the pit of male devaluation.
So I ask you, ladies, since this is fundamentally your problem (as the problem itself stems from your inability to love deeply), what do you plan on doing about this? If not out of a love for men, can you at least take this topic seriously out of a love for your own children? Do you really want a society where fathers and husbands are all but totally trashed and dehumanized? Are you really just the bio-essentialistic, cold blooded, opportunistic, hypergamous snakes that so many men say you are? And if you are driven by such purely hypergamous dynamics, can you really blame men for resenting you for that?
Love is a river of sacrifice that flows from man, to woman, to child, in that order. For this reason, women have little love to give men. Women can only allow men to give love to women. The very idea of seeing a man as an expense, and loving him more for it, not less, is largely alien to the female mind. Again, this is one of those truths that is so stupidly obvious that it’s basically like saying water is wet. In order to prevent men from resenting women for this fundamental inability to love, patriarchal societies invented hierarchies of dominance and submission. Freedom is not some stupidly decadent party favor, handed out for kicks. Freedom is earned. And freedom is earned by taking on the position as the primary provider for a spouse and children. Women have proven that they cannot handle that role. And in case there’s still any doubt, most religions have said similar things for thousands of years.
If love is proven through sacrifice, how will women prove that they love men? I can think of two possibilities. The first possibility is for women to play a female prince to a male Cinderella. Become a hypogamous provider to a hypergamous male dependent. Rescue vulnerable men from the dragon. Become more caring, not less caring, when confronted with male tears. Take on the behaviors of reverse chivalry by marrying down in education, age, wealth, fame, stoicism, and worldliness. Of course, we’ve already established that most women simply can’t, or won’t, play that role. If women don’t want to prove their love in that manner, there is only one other form of sacrifice: Sacrifice your freedoms, as women. Submit to men, as children submit to their parents. If you won’t do either? Then you are refusing to prove your love through sacrifice. Do not expect men to prove themselves to you via sacrifice when you refuse to take either path.
If you ladies want to teach men to learn to love as a woman loves (with physical tenderness, gentleness, and soft persuasions), then allow men to teach you how to love as a man loves (via sacrificial offerings, made in devotion to the object of one’s affection). Prove that a woman loves a man. Let men teach you the true meaning of love. As you have taught men to take on your feminine capacities for gentleness, let men teach you the art of sacrifice.
By the way, if anyone uses this opportunity to sexually insult me, gaslight me, or abuse me, that only further proves my point. That is precisely the type of behavior one would expect to receive from men and women both if everything I say is indeed more or less true. Of course, people would try to hammer down any man who told the truth about such things. Elite males and the majority of females have an invested interest in weaponizing female on male dehumanization against the vast majority of men. If people pretend to not understand that, once again, they are either being malicious or they are stupidly naive beyond explanation.
The thing I find most enraging is that there are still those among us who are so bloody dumb and/or evil as to deny any of these blatantly obvious realities of the human condition. If you live on planet Earth, and if you are over the age of five, and you still fail to comprehend that male love towards women is rooted in sacrifice while female love towards men is rooted in hypergamy (if one can even call that love), then I don’t know what planet you are from, but it most certainly isn’t Earth.