Married Vet, Math background. I provide 1-1 coaching/based therapy yielding you joy & confidence. Eyes On The Prize | Prov. 28:1 Make Therapy Great Again
Joined June 2024
- Tweets27.3K
- Following580
- Followers6.4K
- Likes174K
Schrödinger’s Foidtard:
> Women are in such danger of being killed or raped but also it’s highly unlikely that you as a man will get killed or raped protecting such women so you’re not protectors
“Intellectual” discourse to women is “I feel like” statements about the potential relationship to [insert man] because all they can think about is sex
Based Therapist | Marchese Methods retweeted
re. On Briffault's Law and why it's in the manosphere discourse (largely comes from its introduction into the r/TheRedPill sidebar 13 years ago)
it's largely just a note-trading shorthand amongst men, it's not supposed to be a science publication submission to an editor
Even if there has to be some other explanation (women don't have honor) etc, using Briffault's Law as a shorthand explanation is sufficient to convey the point that women generally do not have intrinsic motivation to provide reciprocal benefits for something once a benefit has already been delivered by a man and men don't do this nearly as much in return
And where men do engage in non-reciprocol trades of benefit, they usually face a lot more social stigma for not following through on obligations they agreed to. So they do this less than women do it, and where men do it people make sure consequences follow or at least try to.
---
Anyone focusing this hard on the empirical value of Briffault's Law instead of the practical value of it as a manosphere shorthand for trading notes about dating and relationships is missing the forest for the trees completely
How would I know this? Because I manage the sub that the human usage of Briffault's Law got by popularized in.
That's why it's there, those who added Briffault's Law to the sidebar back in the day did it for its note trading value, not to be in a science debate outside of the sub.
The shorthand works for people, it's sufficient enough to convey a general idea that women -for whatever reason or explanation- tend to have no sense of duty or obligation of reciprocity or promise once a benefit has already been delivered.
---
Everyone discussing Briffault's Law with the utmost scientific debate angle they can is taking it way too seriously and basically trolling themselves.
Why people debate manosphere shorthand so hard instead of focusing on why women don't follow through on promises of reciprocity instead is beyond me.
It's for note-trading value.
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
(Archived full post link this was based on is in the top comment of this QT)
I’m not arguing that these experiences don’t happen. I’m arguing that experiencing something doesn’t automatically prove Briffault’s Law.
You’re using maternity leave as an example, but women quitting after leave could have many explanations. How does that prove the decision was based on whether they were still benefiting from the relationship?
And thousands of men sharing similar experiences doesn’t automatically establish a universal law. You’d need to show how common the behavior is, why it’s happening, and whether the same principle applies consistently.
My counterargument isn’t that men are lying about what they’ve experienced. It’s that you’re treating your interpretation of those experiences as proof of the theory.
If every time a woman leaves, quits, or changes her mind is considered proof of Briffault’s Law, what evidence would ever convince you that the law is wrong?
Except this is a myth
Low looks doesn’t necessarily imply high smarts and vice versa
The real selection is appraising a girl’s attractiveness independent of whether you’re horny because she sticks her tits out
Every single time a woman talks like this there’s an embedded “because I don’t get to suck as many cocks and get drunk”. Same women will lecture men that they’re lazy indulgent coomer masturgamers, but it turns out women are perpetually mad that microwaving Dino nuggies infringes upon their precious recess.
Women are the real masturgamers
Every time they say “he doesn’t follow Christ” she means “he doesn’t do what I feel like he should do”
Bumbadum is an abject fucktarded unironic twerpy little kid that I don’t blame boomers for lecturing
This tells you a lot about how when they say “men should X for women”, “women” means themselves. Other women don’t exist to them, so when something is done for other women despite it ostensibly in line with their “ethics” and they get mad, they’re mad because their ethics are themselves. They worship themselves
There is nothing eugenic about women in the modern day insofar as what our brains tell us is attractive about them is no longer evolutionarily relevant.
How they evolved and how we selected unfortunately did not account for industrialization, so although the traits we selected for made them good incubators in hunter gatherer feral living, those same traits have made them degenerative now.
You have to begin picking women rationally