2308241600Th THE REAL CONTROVERSY IS FEMALE HYPERGAMY versus MALE NEED!

If only female hypergamy is even considered of course males will always be considered toxic.

Half an equation can’t give anyone an accurate answer anymore than half a truth can render truth. Or you can just as well say that a half truth is a lie. You can only presume that the side of the coin tossed has tails face down from the heads up side that you can see – how do you really know what’s on that other side of that coin without actually seeing it? It’s the same as assuming male toxicity from only considering female hypergamy.

Men are being given a bums rush based solely on one side if the story. Of course considering only one side of anything seems to be common to socialist feminism thinking.

It;s like saying that because there’s smoke there must also be fire. Or that because President Trump has been indicted repeatedly with hundreds of counts he therefore must be guilty of something.

There will always be at least two sides to every story – an equally important antagonist to oppose the protagonist of whatever -- it’s just a fact of nature. And nature is something that feminist socialism is antagonistic against. Feminist socialism is like accepting the yin without even considering yang or accepting chaos without consideration of order..

Consider how wrong feminism is when just as one side increases the other side must correspondingly decrease. As ‘male need’ decreases ‘female hypergamy’ must correspondingly increase proportionately – increase unrealistically too societal collapse.

Now I like the Joker, but listen to how he flails around trying to explain modern gender relations in some coherent fashion to no avail.

Do I need remind you that: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” And if that’s not bad enough, with the one sided family court system sponsored by your tax dollars, a woman can leave at anytime taking the family assets with her denying men their kids and abandoning their husbands altogether. To recognize only one side of gender relations is to not objectively see them at all thanks to feminist theories.

Professor Peterson et al may call male need responsibility, and tomorrow someone will call it something else. But all it actually is is male need to be needed. What feminists fail to understand is that men will go their own way when and/or if not needed – whether it’s by adoption of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) philosophy of life or some other less favorable way they will just leave.

PS1. Hypergamy is being blamed when most if not all the disconnect is due to ‘male need’ to be needed. One of the quickest way to get rid of a man, a good one that is, is for a woman to even intimate that she can do well without him. The exact opposite of what feminism tells women they need to be – strong and independent. Good men will even disappear if a woman intimates that a more affluent man wants her let alone her being a strong and independent don’t need no man. Male need is even more important than female hypergamy because it’s men that are the gate keepers of committed relationships – and so called good men subconsciously take that job very serious.

PS2. You can bet your bottom dollar that the late Queen Elizabeth’s pillow talk was about her need for her husband else he surely wouldn’t have put up with all the crap involved with being her husband. Yes, he needed to want he, but even more importantly she need to convince him that she needed him.

Posted by: Lovers Gold from Billys Classics ~ 2 years ago ~ 2K views ~ 1.71K subscribers
“I Want To Be Wanted Brenda Lee 1960”

PS3 There’s two sides to the gender relations coin, hypergamy on one side and male need on the other, whether feminism wants to admit it or not.

Posted by: Better Bachelor ~ 2 years ago ~ 286K ~ 443K subscribers
“The science of mate selection and why men lose every single time”

#LETSGOBRANDON ~ A Commun-ist (whether he’s capable of realizing it or not?).
#MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) an existentialist (individualist) philosophy of life.
#ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE – STICKS & STONES DON’T, NOT EVEN GUNS KILL ONLY PEOPLE D

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

an·tag·o·nis·tic

ADJECTIVE
antagonistic (adjective)

showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something:

"he was antagonistic to the government's reforms" · "an antagonistic group of bystanders"

SIMILAR: hostile, opposed, inimical, antipathetic, unsympathetic, ill-disposed, resistant, averse, against, (dead) set against, aggressive, belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious. combative, contentious, truculent, confrontational, quarrelsome, argumentative, oppugnant, at odds with, at variance with, in disagreement with, dissenting from.

OPPOSITE: pro, sympathetic.

• BIOCHEMISTRY PHYSIOLOGY
  relating to an antagonist or its action.

Data from Oxford Languages

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[britannica.com]

“yinyang, Wade-Giles romanization yin-yang, Japanese in-yō, in Eastern thought, the two complementary forces that make up all aspects and phenomena of life. Yin is a symbol of earth, femaleness, darkness, passivity, and absorption. It is present in even numbers, in valleys and streams, and is represented by the tiger, the colour orange, and a broken line. Yang is conceived of as heaven, maleness, light, activity, and penetration. It is present in odd numbers, in mountains, and is represented by the dragon, the colour azure, and an unbroken line. The two are both said to proceed from the Great Ultimate (taiji), their interplay on one another (as one increases the other decreases) being a description of the actual process of the universe and all that is in it. In harmony, the two are depicted as the light and dark halves of a circle.”