@whytehorse2021 If memory serves there is one genuine matriarchy in the world (an actual matriarchal society that has survived through history) and they're basically still in tribal times. Pre-medieval levels of technology and existence. Women are generally useless at leading. It's another of these statistical distribution things. You'll get crap male leaders and the occasional good female leader, but generally speaking you want men leading things.

It's another reason why diversity is so damaging. Not only is it dumb to follow arbitrary characteristics, but if you examine the stats on these arbitrary characteristics then you'll get some clear distributions which say "straight white men and gay white men are basically the way to go to lead things." Even when we engage their irrational bollocks on their own terms they're still wrong. Imagine being that stupid... Dunning-Kruger effect is real.

@whytehorse2021 You're underplaying things in my opinion. More specifically though the point you make about how women have turned out as basically the below average male performance could have been seen from the outset. Women are the control group and men are the experimental group in the grand evolutionary experiment. Their statistical distribution of skill, drive, talent, intelligence etc (any area where they can legitimately compete against men without an obvious biological drawback like physical activity) they always turn out as a gender to have a statistical distribution which is simply smaller. So the performance prediction is more reliable, but generally worse quality in almost all cases where you get to the top end and even in the above average bracket.

The excessive consumption and being lazy isn't a woman thing, it's a human thing. We are designed to be lazy in order to preserve energy because we evolved in an environment where there was no abundance of food/drink.

Which brings us to the trad con women or fucking all the hoes. Humanity is naturally polygamous as a result of female hypergamy. A small number of men at the top will take a number of wives and produce lots of children and the rest of the men will go without and not really do much with their lives. Said men deciding to rise up and murder the men at the top is a perfectly reasonable strategy in my mind, hence why there are militaries and guards and so forth for all the men at the top. Though why monogamy? It's made the most successful societies in all of history. The reality is that reproduction is probably our strongest driving force as both men and women - while women can share a man at the top, it's less than ideal because he can happily withdraw his commitment at any time without any real consequences. For guys, monogamy provides a chance of reproduction because there are more women out there who would have taken a higher SMV guy but now can't because their SMV isn't high enough. So they readjust their sights and take the best they can get (which has always been the core of the female sexual strategy.) The guys are motivated and society gets better because men build everything and getting more men invested in society makes society flourish.

We are currently in a collapse because we've abandoned this model in favour of marrying women to the state without a way for the state to walk away. This total lack of dread creates the worst of all worlds - polygamy without the dread factor to keep the woman in line. This has subsequently destroyed demographics across the world - the pill feeds into this and is possibly the most destructive thing to have ever happened in human history - and the economic realities are starting to hit. It certainly didn't help that all our "leaders" decided to follow the Chinese lockdown policy for said Chinese virus.

The plantation as you put it, is good when managed well, your interpretation is just distorted by the reality of seeing what the current plantation looks like, which I agree is shit.

@NightwingTRP

You do whatever you like, but my girlfriend doesn't do X

A powerful line that is.

Another one in my holster:

“I can’t take you seriously if you do that type of shit”

“I thought you wanted me to treat you seriously”

many guys coming to TRP see LTRs as the gold standard

Yeh , in a way, it’s the opposite.

I wrote a post about this “you aren’t ready for a ltr.”

Ltrs are harder since now, her problems become your problem. Boss being a fag, friendship group drama, etc. All of these wouldn’t be your problem if she was a plate.

Then, you got the vast, vast majority of guys wanting a ltr simply because it’s easier than trying to get laid with multiple bitches. Too lazy, and too scared to put themselves out there.

They’d rather consistently eat that one subpar and bland fish from the grocery store than go out hunt into the cold sea for some juicy and varied fish.

It’s a double whammy.

Ltrs are harder to manage and guys typically enter them with scarcity mentality.

@adam-l Be more careful with your language. Mental disorders have specific meanings and characteristics. Avoid the silly hollywood interpretations - they're usually incorrect.

The opposite end of psychopathy is obsessive-compulsive behavior.

No they're not. One is characterised by difficulty empathising, the other is not characterised by over-empathising, but by extremely unpleasant intrusive thoughts. e.g. detailed fantasies (against your will) of self harm or your own death or drowning your baby in more extreme cases.

Taking this into account, and the fact that it's almost impossible to tell a psychopath (especially a woman) before she strike, it might make sense to select girls with mild OC behavior when considering an LTR.

You don't want a woman who suffers intrusive thoughts and indulges compulsive behaviour as a coping mechanism. She already struggles to cope with life normally: this is not ideal material for leading and moulding into a good supportive partner.