Just-worldliness and presumed agency (of say, an advisor and advisee) are two key dimensions to differentiate between blue, red, and blackpill in a general sense. Dating/relationships are perhaps the central/archetypal example, but it’s hardly limited to dating/relationships.
The bluepill presumes a just-worldliness in contrast to the red and black pills; the red pill generally presumes a degree of hyperagency in opposition to the blue and blackpills.
Stereotypically:
Bluepill: The world is just. Be a decent person, read the room, try your best, and it’ll all work out.
Redpill: The world is not just. But here are some One Weird Tricks by which you can reshape (and even exploit) the world to your liking.
Blackpill: The world is not just and there’s nothing you can do about it, other than eating shit.
Sloot
1mo ago
Yeah, men (sons) have the burden of performance. Women (daughters) cannot fail; they can only be failed.
Just existing can be enough for a daughter to retain her father's love, not so much for a son: "Sons are expected to have agency, force of will, ambition. They fail... For Tony Soprano, Bobby Bacala, Johnny Sacs: their girls are their princesses. Forever. Even as they grow up and go to college or get married — they’re daddy’s little girl. If they do something career focused, it’s window dressing or status points... But nevertheless [sons are] expected to win. Daughters are not. Daughters are only there to be loved."
Sure, there are some failure conditions that would apply to both sons and daughters (e.g., becoming a street junkie), and some of the most devastating ways a parental heart can be broken is by way of a daughter to her father, but the general set of failure conditions for a son is much larger than those for a daughter. If you're an M&A Managing Director at an investment bank, your son who became a school teacher is a failson. Your daughter who became a school teacher is just a daughter. Failson is much more of a thing than faildaughter, just as #GirlPower is much more of a thing than #GuyPower, #GirlBoss more of a thing than #GuyBoss.
This reminds me of @Folamh3's comment from a few months ago, although I would add a woman/daughter being pleasant, agreeable, talkative, and amiable can be optional in such circumstances:
I always took this ["women are loved for who they are, men are loved for what they can provide"] to mean that a woman is loved for her intrinsic traits (of which beauty may be one, but doesn't have to be), whereas love for men is conditional on their being productive members of society. I don't just mean "love" in a romantic sense, but also platonic and familial sense. This is difficult to express and back up with hard data, but I do think it's generally much more socially acceptable for the average woman to e.g. take a "sabbatical" or "career break", move back in with her parents and not work for several months, than it would be for a man to do the same. We have a hundred derisive terms for adult men who live with their parents and stubbornly refuse to find a real job and get their shit together ("NEET", "basement dweller", "hikikomori", arguably "incel"), but the reflexive assumption is that a woman who lives with her parents and refuses to get her shit together must be "going through some stuff" or suffering from some nebulous undefined "trauma". Consider also that there's no distaff counterpart to terms like "deadbeat dad", "prodigal son" or "failson". Generally speaking, a woman who is pleasant, agreeable, talkative and amiable, but who's moved back in with her parents, hasn't worked for six months and isn't actively looking for a job is "figuring herself out"; a man who does the same is an embarrassment to the family. I don't think the situation is fundamentally different if the woman is overweight and unattractive. This, I think, is what the "woman are loved for who they are" concept is getting at.
The phenomenon I'm describing isn't just a negative one (romantic, platonic and familial love being extended to women in spite of what they refuse to do - their "sins" of omission) but also positive (their loved ones extending them love and charity in spite of what they have done). It's variously called the "women are wonderful" effect or "hypoagency" or whatever, but my general impression is that whenever a woman does something bad (including criminal offences) people will scramble to find someone or something to blame other than her. I'm racking my brains trying to think of a time I read about a woman on trial for a criminal offense and her crime wasn't attributed to self-defense/justified retribution, "mental health issues", or manipulation by a (male, obviously) third party
So this is my interpretation of "women are loved for who they are": women tend to be loved and respected by their families, friends and romantic partners more or less unconditionally. Crimes of omission, derelictions of duty and shortcomings will be ignored; crimes of commission will be forgiven, excused or explained away. "Pretty privilege" factors into this but is by no means dispositive (e.g. there are no "plus-size men").
On the other hand, perhaps thinking women are just as capable as men is a paradigm which doesn't explain present gender relations. But thinking women as being akin to people with disability does. A person in a wheelchair or a person with blindness are given the same rights as a person with working legs and eyes, but also some on top. Like the ADA which demands resources be expended for the sole benefit of the disabled.
I've seen a few times in the crime-think-sphere a partially joking suggestion in various forms, to mount a campaign to call out misogyny or "misogyny" as a form of ableism under social justice discourse.
But yeah, a lot of this is the usual "women most affected" kind of thing. For example, women have always been the primary victims of male expendability as @RenOS described below.
It may or may not be your fault, but it sounds like the feedback from your manager and coworkers is fairly negative. From your employer's perspective, it probably doesn't matter much whether it's your "fault" or not.
At the very least this is a misalignment in terms of the role and expectations, and/or a bad cultural fit—or perhaps, they're just awful and shitty colleagues, and you should find a way out. To me, personally, your manager and coworkers come across as snakes.
It wouldn't be the end of the world, but I would advise against quitting without something firm lined-up. Jobs are like women; it's always easier to get another one if you have one already. Recruiters don't want a candidate who isn't wanted by other recruiters.
You have to do what's best for your mental health, though. If you have to quit for your own mental sanity, so be it. But maybe you can tough it out for a while at the job. You can always quietly coast/quit while searching for the next venture on your current company's dime, which would better position you financially and professionally. If you get officially put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP): treat it as a Paid Interview Process, as the saying goes. You could also use that as a springboard for negotiating a separation agreement.
Sloot
1mo ago
Anakin: Other potential activities are left to the imagination.
Padme: Like surfing and sightseeing, right?
Anakin: …
Padme: Like surfing and sightseeing… right?
For better or worse, being able to get at least one-rep of 225 on the bench often serves as a bright-line test between DYELs and intermediate lifters (novice lifters in between may struggle).
The NFL combine uses 225 for their bench press test on upper body strength; the NBA a mere 185.
How much muscle is ideal for a man?
How much height or wealth is ideal for a man? Height doesn’t matter, as long as you’re 6’6” or over. Similar principle with regard to muscle.
At what point does lifting weights become detrimental?
Pretty much never, unless you’re blasting a gram+ of testosterone a week with other anabolics in the mix, and lifting weights as a full-time job.
What is the ideal proportion of body weight to be able to bench/squat/deadlift/overhead press for a man with healthy bodyfat?
As much as possible, especially bench and/or OP.
For the most part, there’s no too much strength or muscle, just as there’s not too much height or wealth. Especially when it comes to dating and/or relationship management with women, basically never are there negative returns with regard to additional status/dominance signals.
Sloot
1mo ago
Such a policy would be quite interesting.
If abortions are an unalloyed good and women would surely never lie (#BelieveWomen), then allowing "doctors and psychiatrists and hospitals to be sued by the patients if they have buyers remorse" shouldn't move the needle on MD, hospital, or insurance company profitability or risk-profile.
I do think most young Western men, ranging from the sexually unsuccessful to the already successful, can (further) improve their lot—even substantially for some—by moving/traveling. However, expectations need to be managed and some work may be required to adapt to a new environment, such as learning the language.
Ultimately, the author appears most affected by how his hopes/expectations wrote a check that reality couldn’t cash when it comes to living in red-state country, especially for dating. This is something often seen in men who travel abroad looking for love/sex, but leaving disappointed that they only seem to attract bargirls and prostitutes—or nothing at all (or worse, they leave blissfully unaware that their “girlfriend” is but a bargirl or prostitute).
Sure, your greater wealth, worldliness, credentials, and especially height (in the international traveling case) will give you a leg-up upon the local men when it comes to female hypergamy and polygyny. Your status as an outsider might even stir up some additional curiosity and intrigue. However, girls will be coy and passive regardless of locale, so you must put in the… leg-work. The local girls, particularly the attractive ones, much less the ones who are both attractive and chaste, will hardly line-up to suck your dick and join your harem upon your arrival like a more explicit Axe commercial.
However, I give props to the author for putting his money where his mouth was, and giving it a go at living in red state country (at least for two years). Some other thoughts:
We’ve also passed Peak Woke, and cancel culture is on its last legs.
Yes, and Hunter/Trump will surely go to prison this time.
It turns out safety is mostly achieved by cultivating a boring and risk-averse culture optimized to meet the needs of smallminded and gossipy people who get don’t get excited about much other than college sports and weddings.
Former White Nationalist reinvents the hustle and bustle meme.
And the people who rise to the top of the food chain are never quite as inspirational as they are in places where things are actually happening. They stop being sharp or hungry really early on in life—it’s like they universally have “big fish in a small pond” energy. They work hard until they can coast off a sinecure, at which point they become totally unremarkable and function on autopilot for the rest of their life.
Well yeah, working hard until one can coast off a sinecure is a large motivation for working hard in the first place. Hence #fatFIRE, #chubbyFIRE and whatnot, all the way down to #leanFIRE and/or gasp a normal retirement (the horror).
Of course this revelation won’t come easy to an inexperienced young buck who’s only been with a handful of women. That hipster chick’s tattoos or stripper past or body count of 17 will likely intimidate you. But once you’re nearing 30 and have come into your own as a man, the same girl will seem an ingenue compared to your own triple digit past, while the churchy trad girls you once idealized as innocent little angels will instead seem like frigid judgmental viragoes who could never understand you.
This reeks like cope. Or perhaps: as you amass more sexual and life experiences, you cherish and appreciate the churchy trad girls all the more, and the thought of wifing up a tattoo’d hipster, former stripper, or a girl with a body count of 17 fills you with all the more disgust as your options widen and your desperation decreases.
In fact, many of them seemed hostile toward the very idea of someone moving around in the first place. When I first arrived a lot of people were genuinely incredulous that someone from another state would ever choose to live there, and thus regarded me with suspicion. Midwesterners seem not to like people who move. Many of my new social circle had never lived outside their immediate area and still were geographically very close to their parents.
*shocked pikachu*. People who are self-selected temperamentally and/or perhaps genetically to prefer their way of life and staying amongst themselves, and regard interloping outsiders with suspicion. Someone hasn’t read their Cochran and Harpending on the Amish.
To put it bluntly, most of my White neighbors and coworkers basically resembled hobbits. They had no ambition to them, nor any aspirations of greatness. Nor did they think about the world in a dynamic way—the more educated among them certainly stayed informed about the wider world, but they largely took it for granted that their immediate universe was a static place where nothing would ever happen.
Don’t these stupid midwestern hobbits know how much better life would be with elves telling them what to do and orcs providing some vibrancy?
Agreed, though, that a lot of white Americans are kind of like hobbits, in their lack of antibodies against general blank slatism, outgroup preferences, and progressive American culture. They might make a stink face at the young white male cosmopolitan who arrives in town for an extended study abroad program, but will root for outsiders and people that hate them when it comes to college football/basketball, the NFL, the NBA. Quokka would be the rationalist sphere term of art, here. “Cucks” might even apply. Relatedly, this has been touched upon in the Norf FC series of memes with regard to whites on the other side of the pond.
Dealing with female passivity, flakiness, and fickleness, the female inability and indifference to uphold their word, is a common source of frustration for men that transcends time and space when it comes to dating.
Even after carpet-bombing messages on social media and/or OLD, cold-approach grinding, or the stars aligning such that your social circle gifts you with a prospect, you still need to perform the scheduling battleship and text-message jiu-jitsu to get a given girl to agree to a date. And even after she agrees, in the hours leading up to a date, it’s very possible she’ll cancel, ghost, or request to reschedule. Of course, if you call her out for her lack of accountability and trustworthiness, you’d be the weird anti-social asshole questioning her Wonderfulness, Lived Experience, and Emotional Truth.
There are no magic words, no "one weird trick"s. Check-in too little prior to a date and she might bail under the excuse that she didn’t hear from you, supposedly presuming you lost interest or that the date was off. Check-in too much and it might give her the ick, that you’re too insecure, obsessed, or pressuring.
As the time of the date approaches, aside from being late and/or flaking, a lot of girls will also exploit the fact that you’re basically a hostage waiting for them. At the last minute, a lot of them will try to re-plan the date such that you have to spend maximal time and money, and with minimal chances of her putting out. “Actually, can we meet at [expensive restaurant] instead?”
A lot of them will claim to run late with minimal communication and then cancel while you’re continuing to wait for them. Unfortunately or fortunately, a lot of them will also claim to run late with minimal communication before showing up. This is why I angle for the first date to occur at my place: Logistics to get the bang, more cost-effective, I can wait at my place instead of having gone somewhere if she’s running late, “running late,” cancels and/or ghosts.
The only real defense for a man is playing the numbers game and having enough prospects to diversify. It’s less devastating if your Tuesday night flakes when you still have Wednesday and Thursday night dates scheduled with other girls. Easier to drop your Saturday night if she plays hardball and insists on meeting at a restaurant, when you have a Sunday afternoon. Eventually one will come through.
Furthermore, one can schedule two dates the same day (e.g., 1PM and 7PM), such that if the earlier cancels you at least have the latter one. If the latter one cancels later on, at least you had the earlier one. If things go poorly with the 1PM, you still have the 7PM. If things go well with the 1PM at a slow pace, you can cancel on the 7PM. If things go really well with the 1PM at a fast pace, you can escort her out and go forth with the 7PM date.
Staggering dates is also an option. For example, scheduling an early afternoon date with one girl at 1PM, and the other at 3PM. If the 1PM girl shows up, great, and you cancel on the 3PM. If the 1PM flakes you might still have the 3PM.
One can also double book (or more), scheduling two dates at the same time with different girls. This way it helps increase the chances that one of them shows up. Once you have a fair degree of confidence that one will show-up, you can cancel on the other. Although, meanwhile, the one who you think will show-up might just flake on you at the last moment. The more GigaChad maneuver would be to have both show-up, where they can fight over you and/or you go for the threesome.
Canceling and/or floating reschedules on girls is risky, as they’ll act like you violated the Geneva Convention in offending their Princess Complex (even though they wouldn’t have given the slightest of fucks to flake on you), which could lead to you losing a hard-earned prospect.
There’s no reason to go easy and Be A Decent Person and/or Be a Gentleman. Young women are more than okay with wasting your time, money, energy. Not only are they largely indifferent to your time, a lot of them put a negative value on it. Wasting your time, money, energy, feeds their vanity and sense of validation. Many women will brag about it: “Only here to be spoiled," “Buy me food and tell me I’m pretty," “Just here to waste your time,” reads many a female online dating profile.
Young women are basically bratty children when it comes to scheduling and flaking. It’s essentially a survival tactic if you want to see a girl again, to bang her ASAP. This way she at least has skin in the game and will be more of a teammate in scheduling and coordinating.
The thought of having had a drug addiction would put-off and disgust red- and black-pillers a lot less than the thought of having a single/divorced mother of a thot-daughter, and a lot of blue-pillers as well. Especially since one's drug addiction wouldn't be prancing around trying to inject itself left and right as an influencer, constantly reminding everyone of its existence (look at me!).
From what I've seen, drug use is largely orthogonal to red-pill beliefs, at least on average. I'm sure there's a lot of red-pillers who advocate for a monkish and austere lifestyle devoid of drugs and alcohol, but there's also a lot of them who like to party. After all, doing drugs and/or drinking with a girl is an ancient prelude leading up to her letting you pipe her.
Especially since, at least according to Wikipedia, JP's drug addiction was to benzos following his wife's cancer diagnosis. It's not like he was tweaking or shooting-up in the streets of Toronto, harassing passerby's as to whether they've read the literature.
Sloot
1mo ago
Crucially, a baseball bat doesn't have a pointy-end, though.
Trying to thrust a baseball bat into someone's face runs a large chance of it missing, getting it blocked, and/or getting it grabbed. From the opponent's perspective, getting thrusted with a baseball bat into the arm or leg is like a complete non-issue and getting thrusted with a baseball bat in the stomach might hurt ("ooph!"), but ultimately presents an opportunity to grab the bat and/or counterattack.
However, getting thrusted with a spear anywhere could mean getting momentarily disabled or death, or momentarily disabled and then death. Spears can also deal slash damage to cause bleed-out, which a baseball bat cannot. A lucky poke or slash from a spear could be all it takes.
I think the youth agree with me, here. Jordan Peterson's popularity, notoriously, came from offering boomer dad advice. Recently there's been discussion of positive male role models to replace Andrew Tate; Andrew Tate's pitch isn't much different from tons of other redpill influencers.
I’m not too familiar with the specifics of Peterson and Tate’s philosophies/grifting. However, from my vantage point, those who shriek at them are typically inverse weathervanes, so the two are probably doing something right.
My sense is that Peterson is already on the wane, and his ability to be a “red-pill” influencer is limited by his daughter’s hoetry, as a divorced single-mother, party-girl, and general e-thot. The optics are just bad: Physician, heal thyself. Which makes the AI-generated JP readings of the “having a daughter is the ultimate and final cuck” pasta all the more hilarious and devastating, although he may have gotten many of those taken down (but not all!).
A more blackpilled take might be: “If Peterson wasn’t able to stop his daughter from hoeing around, what chances do the rest of us have?”
The pro-social version of Andrew Tate isn't the male feminist activist. It's Mike Rowe.
It’s also possible the pro-social version of Andrew Tate is… Andrew Tate. Perhaps his advice is net-beneficial to young men, in helping them be more willing to stop cooperating in the face of defection. To the extent his advice hurts the Wonderfulness of women, maybe it helps young men more (albeit, pro-social behavior is often defined as what benefits women, so something that is an X loss for women but a X + Epsilon gain for men would be considered anti-social, even if Epsilon is quite large). He could be providing an essential service in expanding the Overton window, or at least slowing it from further shrinkage or swimming left.
This is an old but interesting debate with many YouTube animations to explore it. However, I'm definitely #TeamKnife, especially since it's a wooden bat which tends to be thinner and with a smaller sweet spot.
There's many more paths to victory for the knife-wielder, and many more things that can go wrong for the bat-wielder. For fighting moving targets ready to counter-attack, I'd say it takes much less skill to cause grievous harm in the first few hits with a knife than a baseball bat. This isn’t a turn-based game where the bat-wielder gets a courtesy first crack at teeing off cleanly.
The power in a baseball swing comes from hip rotation. A feet-planted swing from the bat-wielder's dominant side, landing with the sweet spot, would be needed to do any stun or structural damage to the knife-wielder in an arm, leg, or the torso. The head is easy to miss (or have the swing get glanced off the shoulder) and would likely be protected by the knife wielder's arm. Short-armed rabbit swings aren't going to cut it when your opponent has a knife (or no knife). An off-balance swing isn't going to cut it, nor a swing that lands on the edge of the bat (where opposite side foul balls often occur) nor a swing that lands in the first 2/3 or so of the bat's length starting from the base of the handle. Two hands are needed as well. One can whip it around one-handedly, but it'd be a weak swing needing a lot of wind-up, leading yourself open to counterattack. One errant (attempted) swing, one that misses, or one that causes insufficient damage, and it could be curtains for bat-wielder.
Plus, an inexperienced man's baseball swing looks more like a little girl's than it does Josh Donaldson's. And a bat is much more easily grabbed than a knife by a counterparty. The knife-wielder will likely have a hand free more often than the bat-wielder.
The knife-wielder can just put an arm-up on the bat-wielder's dominant side*, and feign bum-rushes until going for the final bum-rush. The knife-wielder can hang around close but outside the range of the bat before charging, leading little time for the bat-wielder to take a solid swing. Any sort of close-quarters combat, clinch, or grappling, goes in the favor of the knife-wielder. Pretty much any stab that lands on the bat-wielder could potentially be fatal; not so for any swing that lands on the knife-wielder. Even if the bat-wielder is able to Babe Ruth-maxx and club the knife-wielder to death, any stab wound incurred along the way could just mean dying on the way or inside the hospital.
I wonder if it's the greater legibility of a baseball bat that leads to more support for the bat than there would be otherwise. Many have swung a baseball bat—or at least watched someone they know swing a baseball bat—or have watched baseball swings on TV. Not so many have tried to stab someone, or have watched someone trying to stab someone, or have watched nonfictional stabbings occur in person or virtually.
* Since most people are right-handed, this would likely mean the right-handed knife-wielder putting up a left arm to defend against the right-handed bat-wielder's swings, and stabbing with the right hand. Even the arm-dominance situation works to the favor of the knife-wielder.
that MVP decision has been widely mocked and considered a mistake by basketball fans even on Reddit.
Only ex-post at best, as Redditors fence-sat and waited tentatively to see that the coast was clear, especially since the Nuggets won the 2023 championship. "I'm one of the good ones, but DAE think that Jokic should had won his third MVP instead of Embiid?"
I also am not sure that it really had so much to do with race as with a reluctance by voters to give a third consecutive MVP to a guy who had, at that point, never won a championship.
Yet, for much of the 2022-2023 season, including up through at least the midseason, Jokic was the favourite to win his third NBA MVP. In another words, at least until then and more, markets expected that voters were more than fine with rewarding Jokic his third consecutive MVP. The race-card playing that began a few weeks later corresponded to a drastic decrease in his chances.
Sloot
1mo ago
”Those who would like to see a ceasefire in Gaza. A ceasefire is on the table today for six weeks to be built on into something more enduring if Hamas would simply release women, wounded, and elderly”
Life imitates art: bill_burr_bullets_hurt_me_too.mp4
I believe it’s Hanania who has made comments that if you take a liberal woman and asks her beliefs on a host of woke topics she will answer correctly. But then make a comment about her weight and she will become upset and apparently all women aren’t beautiful, etc.
Hmm, don’t know if it’s Hanania-related or not. But in crimethink-spheres, it’s long been a meme/pasta that liberal women generally aren’t too pleased if you compliment them for being passing transwomen.
And for the record I 100% think women should get special treatment in times of war.
I disagree. Rules applied evenly are preferable to rules applied selectively. If women have the rights and status of men, they can #GirlBoss and meatshield on the front-lines alongside men.
As mentioned, it’s relative to (pop-) punk bands like Good Charlotte or NOFX.
We’re barely or not even a year removed from when the race-card was (successfully) played to agitate for Embiid getting the MVP instead of Jokic, to essentially zero pushback on the idpol front.
Indeed… “counter-culture” nowadays is basically being a white- or Asian-adjacent heterosexual male without tattoos (or at least, minimal tattoos), unapologetic and unashamed of who you are.
(Pop-) punk bands, to the extent they were famous in the 90s-10s, have their views well-represented in academia, government, and Hollywood. It’s like the Babylon Bee headline: “Man Who Agrees With The Media, Universities, Corporations, And Hollywood Thinks He's Part Of The Resistance.”
If you’re salary-grinding at XYZ Corp, it’d be far less controversial or eyebrow-raising to say to your coworkers that you’re a fan of Good Charlotte or NOFX, than to say you were a fan of Paulo Costa, Tyson Fury, or Nikola Jokic.
That's fair.
Although I would add, conversely, misogyny (in the strict sense of hating women for being women) can in many cases inspire thinking that women are necessarily boring, useless, and/or weak just because they're women (where "weak" is probably the... weakest... part of the statement, as women are almost always indeed physically weaker than men, and in many cases psychologically, as well).
The kind of misogyny that is fundamentally driven by, say, thinking that women are boring, useless, or weak is fairly rare.
Or is this even “misogyny”?
A lot of “misogyny” is just holding women up to the standards that you would expect out of a man, under the paradigm that women have the same rights and status as men, and that women are just as strong and independent as men.
The median woman is boring relative to the median man, much less the 90th percentile or so woman vs. the 90th percentile man (given tail effects) in terms of worldliness, funniness, interestingness. Many women and men would agree, regardless of their political orientation.
Women are physically weak. I don’t think it’s something that needs to be re-litigated here. But also perhaps mentally weak, in terms of being more subject to crying randomly, Stockholm Syndrome, being more prone to social trends, memes, preselection and female mate-choice copying. Women tend to be less agentic and more passive.
Women can be more useful in certain contexts. However, in a lot of contexts, they’re also quite useless. For example, screaming “STOP” or “STAHP” but doing nothing is a common feature in fight and/or crime videos on a worldwide basis. A lot of times, they’re but exacerbating the situation with their histrionics. Pointing it out is trite nowadays, like pointing out that there are clouds when it’s raining.
In a similar vein, children might be boring, useless, weak. Yet, men would hardly be regarded as mis-children-ists if they viewed children as such. In concept-space, women are tilted toward children relative to men, when it comes to standards and expectations.
It's a pretty common occurrence nowadays in mixed-sex online spaces when discussing the "Women Are Wonderful" effect and female in-group preferences.
The women will often lean-in to merited impossibility, claiming something to the tune of "Female in-group preferences are not a thing and just a misogynistic myth. But if they are a real thing, it's only because women, with our greater empathy and propensity for emotional labor, are better at starting and maintaining support networks and social groups. If you don't like it, build your own support networks and social groups."
Yet, countless male support networks and social groups have been infiltrated and canceled. When men do build their own support networks and social groups, such women will recoil "wait... no! Not like that!" and be immediately screaming at the door to get in and/or trying to get such networks and groups canceled, claiming that such venues are but old-boys'-clubs and hotbeds of supposed misogyny and other types of crime-think.
African populations have more genetic diversity within different sub-populations as an example.
That's a neat bit of trivia, but not remarkable either. Sticking with the color example, there's more diversity in wavelengths in "Red" (130 nm) than in "Green", "Yellow", and "Orange" combined (125 nm). Groups aren't always the same size, so "African" being more diverse than "European" and "Asian" combined isn't (wouldn't be?) notable.
In addition, the elision between discussing West/Central black African genetics (from which black Americans draw the majority of their ancestry) and African genetics as a whole is another common and classic tactic to distract, when the Western discourse is centered around black Americans. Africa contains populations such as North Africans who are more closely related to other Mediterranean populations (albeit with some more recent black admixture related to reasons such as the slave trade and/or Arab expansion), Ethiopians (who have significant Arab ancestry), Khoisan (who were the first to branch off from the rest of humanity), African pygmies (the second to branch off from the rest of humanity), the Malagasy (who were originally Austronesian).
It'd be like trying to poo-poo the genetic differences between birds and non-Avian dinosaurs because the majority of Archosaurian genetic diversity is found within crocodilians, pterosaurs, and non-Avian dinosaurs.
On a side note, African pygmies have long been on the wrong side of systematic replacement, genocide, rape, and even cannibalism from their West/Central black African neighbors, persisting to this day. Somehow, this phenomenon remains largely undiscussed in mainstream Western discourse.
Eh, don’t think so.
It’s more consistent with general female hybristophilia.
Middle class suburban American cat ladies, who code white, being into serial killers is a “man-bites-dog” story in comparison to the “dog-bites-man” story of black American women being into thugs (as Will and Jada Smith might tell you) or latinas (whether born in the US or Latin America) being into cartel members or their derivatives.
Putting a “white” in front of “women” is oftentimes a way to Notice things about women without getting Canceled. After all, white women are among the white people of women, non-Asian minorities, and the LGBTQ+.
More options
Context Copy link