Ask a gynophobe anything
Negrophobe
Regular
It's been a slow but reassuring realization just what cunts women really are and how they really are nothing special at all, less than shallow and down right disgusting, frigid and evil bitches. I was one who was once for women's rights, but I began to see a pattern, even if you could keep the bitch happy - which is truly an impossibility unless your dick tastes like chocolate and you ejaculate money - the damn right selfishness and sense of entitlement these women had, as if it was man's duty for life to revolve around the woman and her well being was to be considered at all times, whether it was at the cost or well being of a male. I then became a chauvinist, life picked up, lots of sex was had and a lot of bitches were put in their place, but even a lot of so called chauvinists put so much care on getting laid that the only chauvinists I began to see as genuine were the ones who were also clued up (about women) homosexuals (women actually have a deep seeded hatred for homosexuals and bitch behind their backs ... but I guess this will take a thread of its own). My chauvinism turned to misogyny and from there it has turned into gynophobia other than the fact I could probably bring myself to even care to fuck a woman for the sake of passing on my seed and then just getting the bitch out of the picture (anything short of murder and it'll be very hard to do this, what with our matriarchistic and pro-female/feminism courtrooms, law and society). I've said it in other threads, paedophiles and hebephiles would make a better fill in for the role of a parent than a woman would.
Myself and the technocrats really need to get to work on making an artificial womb, similar to but more plausible than that of the one described in Huxley's Brave New World.
I believe feminism, females in general and the wants they have, their utter selfishness and their irrationality along with the grip they have on society is a major reason society has begun to fall. My belief is we are currently in a dark age of social marxism- political correctness, feminsim and matriarchy. To stay on the straight and narrow and successful path, I believe males should spend little - no time at all on or with females, his energy can be put to use in much better and constructive facets of life and not be drained psychologically as well as physically by females. It is no coincidence that males who have less sex than those who have regular sex are more intelligent, and males who are virgins tend to be more intelligent than those who have any sex at all. It is also no coincidence that every great and influential philosopher (who were males) was a misogynist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Philosophy
See this, also:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Now I know what you're thinking or ready to burst for joy at a chance of replying with, in regards to that statement; correlation does not equal causation, right?
First of all, correlation still fucking matters, even if this is the case. R. A. Fisher, the famous statistician, wrote in a letter to Nature in 1957 that:
Now that is out of the way, any questions for a gynophobe/misogynist?
Myself and the technocrats really need to get to work on making an artificial womb, similar to but more plausible than that of the one described in Huxley's Brave New World.
I believe feminism, females in general and the wants they have, their utter selfishness and their irrationality along with the grip they have on society is a major reason society has begun to fall. My belief is we are currently in a dark age of social marxism- political correctness, feminsim and matriarchy. To stay on the straight and narrow and successful path, I believe males should spend little - no time at all on or with females, his energy can be put to use in much better and constructive facets of life and not be drained psychologically as well as physically by females. It is no coincidence that males who have less sex than those who have regular sex are more intelligent, and males who are virgins tend to be more intelligent than those who have any sex at all. It is also no coincidence that every great and influential philosopher (who were males) was a misogynist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Philosophy
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/08/09/study_iq_linked_to_virginity.aspxStudy: IQ linked to virginity
Recent studies on sexual activity among adolescents and young adults show that being an "average Joe" may have benefits outside of the classroom.
The studies show that female and male adolescents with an IQ score either below 70 or above 110 are more likely to be virgins.
Adolescents with IQ scores ranging from 70 to 110 had the lowest probability of virginity, according to two researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The average IQ score is 90 to 110.
Mariah Mantsun Cheng, a research associate, and J. Richard Udry, professor of maternal and child health and sociology, both from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, conducted the study. They discovered that 39.8 percent of boys with an average IQ score have had sex while 29.2 percent of boys with an IQ above 110 have had sex.
They also found that 63.3 percent of adolescent men and 81.6 percent of women with IQ scores below average have never had sex and most have had fewer experiences of romantic attraction.
Another study in Gene Expression Magazine entitled "Intercourse and Intelligence" confirms this data, citing research that shows a bell-shaped relationship between IQ scores and sex.
According to the research, an adolescent with an IQ score of 100 was 1.5 to 5 times more likely to have had intercourse than an adolescent with an above average score of about 120 to 130.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) along with nationwide university studies support this research.
The CDC states that by age 19, 80 percent of men and 75 percent of women lose their virginity. According to a survey held by Counterpoint Magazine at Wellesley College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 60 percent of undergraduates at Wellesley are virgins and 47 percent of undergraduates at MIT are currently virgins.
The study at Wellesley also broke the research down by majors. It found that no studio art majors were virgins while 72 percent of biology majors and 83 percent of biochemistry and math majors were virgins.
Cheng said the research also indicated that boys with lower IQ scores are more likely to be attracted to the same sex compared with average boys.
"While the majority of adolescents with lower cognitive abilities have not had sex," Cheng said, "among those who are sexually active, especially for girls, are much less likely to use contraceptives, having a higher risk of pregnancy as well."
Cheng and Udry's study is an ongoing longitudinal study that began in 1994.
"There are the same people in the study now as there were when it began in 1994," Udry added.
See this, also:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Now I know what you're thinking or ready to burst for joy at a chance of replying with, in regards to that statement; correlation does not equal causation, right?
First of all, correlation still fucking matters, even if this is the case. R. A. Fisher, the famous statistician, wrote in a letter to Nature in 1957 that:
Basically, what I'm getting at is, sometimes or often correlation is a good start, and as we build up more and more data, we can make a good case that there is a causal relationship.The curious associations with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple conclusion that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the bronchus induce, though after a long interval, the development of a cancer.
Now that is out of the way, any questions for a gynophobe/misogynist?
Comments
I'm of the reasonable and logical idea that any "nice girl" won't be offended by anything a man says, no matter how misogynistic or "hurtful", especially when reasons and examples are always given for the hatred of females and their characteristics- often scientific, as well as being commonly accessable stuff that we've all experienced. The female design is designed around parasitism. She'd have to go against her inherant physiological design, such as not using her appearance to act all sweet and innocent to fool males into trusting her, and then turning him into her slave and being a complete fucking bitch. Accept the scientifical and common sensed fact that females are weaker and intellectually inferior, which is one of the reasons why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning other than bringing to light that they thrive on and bring misery and degradation of the morale of great men. Everything great in the world and everything they use and have was fought for or created by males. And don't give me that oppression bullshit, because they wouldn't know true oppression if it came and slapped them in the face, they had everything they needed (some women were infact against the idea of women having the vote and rightfully so). Men have been ridiculed, exiled, tortured and killed ontop of having the fear of just that, for science and philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
They should be forever greatful to us for this and if anything, worship males because of this.
And that's just five examples. The fact of the matter is women aren't critical thinkers and are deeply inferior in subjects that matter like mathematics, science and anything else really. They get by easier just by lying on their back. It's been shown in a study that women with low IQs (so this means the vast majority) also are more likely to go for richer males.
How can you be a "phobe" of anything, that is obviously the inferior gender?
Learn to misogyny better, then let's talk.
Like with "homophobes". I know for a fact an overwhelming portion aren't "afraid" of them, nor is the hatred based in foundations set in christianity, but people simply don't like them because they find their activities to be disgusting. Although some actual are afraid of them or are insecure, well the same goes with gynophobia. In my case it's hatred more so than it is fear (all I fear is a feminized society of emancipated males and my fellow males wrongfully getting fucked over both socially and financially by females- who have the law on their side.)
Currently gynophobic and misogynist is the best way to describe me, as is homophobic for those with a hatred of homosexuals, unless an alternative is put in place.
See, that is another one I don't agree with...and I won't derail this thread breaking apart the absurdity of that grammatical monstrosity just trying to satiate the homosexual agenda and give it a sense of more undeserved legitimacy.
Suffice it to say though, "homophobe" is the very essence of an oxymoron, and no self respecting LITERAL speaker would ever be able to spew that word with a straight face.
I'm not sexually attracted to males.
DaGuru, I agree, the term is most certainly misused and overused by homosexuals. I'm not even too bothered about gays and what they do, but it is a fact that the actual "movement" for homosexuals is just another piece of bourgeois liberal piece of shit and is based on appeals to emotion, not reality. The movement likes to lie a lot and distort facts.
Men are more variable than women
Men are more variable in personality and behaviour than women. This can simply be shown mathematically by using a gaussian curve which plots the incidence of systematic differences in forms between individuals of a different sex in the same species. You'll see from the standard normal distribution along the curve that not only do women have lower standard deviations than men but that women always tend to move towards the middle of the curve. Wheras men have a tendency to cluster around the upper and lower extremes of the curve. This shows that women are generally homogeneous in both personality and behaviour. There are more men of genius and high intelligence than women; women of talent and ability are extremely rare, and pretty much nonexistent.
It's no coincidence that men make better comedians and there are more of them, male inventors, more criminals masterminds and better criminals than women. More daredevils and stuntmen. Basically there's more male eccentrics than women; more men with high levels of creativity than women; more males with better athletic ability than women; more men with a much greater sense of humour than women, and the list goes on and on and on.
Now I'll tell you why this is. Firstly, alleles on both sex chromosomes present within the male genome are not coupled in the same dominant or recessive pairs as in the female; meaning there's nothing to cover the expression of gene replication errors in RNA transcription within the male lineage itself, ultimately producing a wide variation in both male personality and phenotype. Also, greater male variability is due to the presence of testosterone which enhances neuro-biological mechanisms for individual motivation within the male central nervous system, thus giving men a much greater drive to adapt and conquer problems and obstacles infront of them. See my thread in the inhumane condition about testosterone, there's many misconceptions about this hormone. Don't foget, men are from their coming into this world thrown into male-male competition for available females, and have no choice but to become a genetic filter for the species/race.
All of these features are lacking in the human female. Women are homogeneous in both personality and behaviour across all times and places, all ethnicities, races and cultures. All a woman has going for her are her looks, which they'll use as a tool to get what they want.
So coming back to the gaussian curve. Men cluster around the very extremes of any trait that is either expressed phenotypically/genotypically, or one that is ultimately the natural byproduct of socio-cultural adaptation. Where on the other hand, women tend to be roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour and it clusters around the middle of any Gaussian distribution.
P.S. Pakistanis sniff cum
Part of my problem with the MISuse of these newer "phobe" words....is it is implying a position of power for the entity that is supposedly "feared". That isn't the case, and like I said earlier we are discussing an INFERIOR entity...there should be no concession of facts lost in the nomenclature of our descriptions.
Whether it be women or gays, you are putting them on a higher pedestal yourself then they deserve to be....just by using that verbiage/misrepresentation of the facts as they are.
My beef isn't your misogyny or its ideals.....but your minimizing those very beliefs by giving them more credit then they deserve.