Basman

You're evolved to survive average. The fact that this goes over your head is part of the problem. You fundamentally don't understand nature and survival. you treat it like it's just a matter of perspective. It's not a matter of perspective when your menopausal and regret not starting a family sooner. That's bad ideology playing out in real time. Probably all of them if they live long enough. Eggs are finite. Human egg supply is meant to last about the average life span historically. https://www.science.org/content/article/menopause-may-be-widespread-among-mammals-challenging-famed-hypothesis

Your going to have weird ideas about gender if you fundamentally don't understand what humans built to survive originally. Modern life has so thoroughly spoiled people that they lost touch with reality. This gender war is really just a debate over post-modern equalitism, which is valid because post-modernists fundamentally don't understand human nature. They are too ideological about equality to understand how humans are foundationally equal, thus their beliefs in practice will play out badly.

Average lifespan is 40 before modern medicine. Animals in shelter live longer than in nature.

Bad post-modernism in action. The hubris is like a biblical tale. Such a spoiled attitude. You'd think having a near-rape experience would make you reconsider one's lack of common sense.

Life purpose is about the impact you want to have on others. It's about providing a service and business. "Wholeness" is more like a value you have for yourself unless you want to make others feel whole.

A lot of women reject biological essentialism, especially relative to maternity, because it feels stifling and demeaning. likr it's a myth. It's not wrong to be free and feel entitled to personal happiness in modern day, but you have to be delusional to think we're perfectly equal. The biological differences are very obvious. It would be easy for society physically enslave women if it wanted to. Post-modernism is such a luxury problem.

Survival first. Human children are so dependent for so long that women have to be more specialized evolutionary. You can't be a father without being good at survival, whereas women can rely on the man for their survival. You see this reflected in how women overwhelmingly select for men who are good at survival (fame, strength, wealth, status, etc.).

How am I racist?

I guess my skin. I don't really see my bones. It's just an abstraction in my mind.

Because a man's function is raw physical survival. One man can impregnate a 100 women, but that means little if they can't also survive. Reproduction is the easy part for men. Historically it wasn't always clear who the father was depending on the culture. But a child is almost always at least tied to its mother. The same is often true of other mammals. The one who gives birth raises the kids. The males either help out with hunting/territory if its a social species or they just provide good genes.

It just takes a few years for most animals to mature. Once they stop weening, they just hide their kids in a cave somewhere and go hunt (unless they live in herds). And they often shit out a whole litter. *closest living relative. Chimps are also hominids, but a different genus all together. We're much much closer to other human species than chimps.

With mammals, females are generally smaller. Human reproduction is particularilly costly and lengthy on top of that. And our children have to be born relatively underdeveloped to fit through the pelvis. women (womb men) have to be relatively specialized evolutionary in order to make it work, which means that women have to rely on men to survive (social resources) more directly. Men are much better adapted for raw physical survival.

Latest post about realism reminds me of this story. I have a relative who claims they can talk to ravens and that they frequently did so during childhood. It's not that I am not prepared to be open minded to them being able to talk to ravens, even though its to me unrealistic, but its just more probable that it's some imaginary friend type shit (they are autistic if it matters). They've made other claims about talking with ghosts and shit too on ocassion. How serious should you take claims like this? My instinct is to go just like "yeah whatever".

Never had an issue 👍

Which is something I've been saying for a while. Porn is overrated as a negative to society compared to social media, gaming and streaming. Casual media is much more likely to hold you back in life by a huge magnitude. It's just that complaining that you are addicted to gaming and that governments should ban it is going to be met with "L + skill issue". Most anti-porn bros think that porn is inherently shameful. It has more to do with cultural attitudes, largely rooted in religion, than anything else. There's also some misogynistic rage over promiscuous women and how girls can easily make a lot of money of sex mixed in there towards the more incelly aspect of anti-porn. The whole thing is a big nothing burger. It's just losers projecting their victim mentality.