Why are women bigger on political correctness than men?

[Winston]

Has anyone noticed that it tends to be women who are big on political correctness, and not so much men? I wonder why. Not only do they get more offended when you say something that's not politically correct, but their views tend to be more politically correct than truthful or factual. I wonder why that is? Could it be cause they are more emotional and political correctness tends to be more emotional than logical?

With men, you can be more upfront about things without offending them. When guys are offended, it's not in a "twisted" way like women are. Ever notice that?

I wonder why women are much bigger on political correctness than men are. Any thoughts?

[Nate]

Political correctness is about imposing despotic socialism...(comrades) and the movers of totalitarian socialism have correctly identified American women as useful tools...they want to get as many of them as possible into the ranks of dependents..where the government is every woman's husband. They are succeeding. Parroting idiotic leftist bullshit is just part of the training process.

[Enishi]

Besides the fact that political correctness appeals to many modern women in an emotional, fuzzy sense, I think they tend to just get more offended in general whenever someone says something which goes against the grain. They believe that if the herd (and especially those members of the herd who have STATUS) states something to be true, than it MUST be true.

[Adama]

Women impose PC on men. They do not impose it on their personal friends. They are only interested in controlling male opinion. They dont give a shit about female opinion. It really is a p***y cartel.

[Winston]

Good points guys. Yeah it is true that women tend to get more offended when you say things that are against the grain or not politically correct, especially if they are English speaking women, and especially if they are Western women and have more money. Poor girls don't tend to get offended as easily. And guys tend to be more calm and rational about it, rather than jumpy. I wonder why.

Also, women don't seem very impressed with guys who can think outside the box, or who can debunk lies and bullshit. It's like truth seekers, intellectuals, and bullshit detectors have no value to women. I don't get why. How can they not be impressed by truth? Truth is the highest value to me, so why isn't it impressive to women?

[EvilBaga]

Women transmit culture. They are good at this because, as a general rule, they blindly absorb the culture around them.
So they will support whatever the prevalent culture is.

Men do not, they *create* culture.

Apart from this, usually when being PC, we try not to point out something that is very harmful to society to avoid offending small groups.
Women do not pay the price of anything. So they can afford P.C.

Finally, much of female mental makeup is geared towards manipulating men into doing things for them. This is, if boiled down to basics, misdirecting the strong to benefit the weak. So womens natural instincts have an affinity for PC, which is similar in makeup.

Also, women don't seem very impressed with guys who can think outside the box, or who can debunk lies and bullshit. It's like truth seekers, intellectuals, and bullshit detectors have no value to women. I don't get why. How can they not be impressed by truth? Truth is the highest value to me, so why isn't it impressive to women?

Are you sure, it doesn't differ by culture? Women are comparatively brainless compared to men. So it will boil down to power and status.

In a matriarchy (the west) or anarchy (mexico, russia, phillipines I guess) its useless to be an intellectual - no status. In a patriarchy, Im sure more girls would be impressed with true intellectuals. Perhaps ancient Athens. Perhaps current day Orthodox Jews?

[Adama]

Women transmit culture. They are good at this because, as a general rule, they blindly absorb the culture around them.
So they will support whatever the prevalent culture is.

Men do not, they *create* culture.

Apart from this, usually when being PC, we try not to point out something that is very harmful to society to avoid offending small groups.
Women do not pay the price of anything. So they can afford P.C.

Finally, much of female mental makeup is geared towards manipulating men into doing things for them. This is, if boiled down to basics, misdirecting the strong to benefit the weak. So womens natural instincts have an affinity for PC, which is similar in makeup.

Also, women don't seem very impressed with guys who can think outside the box, or who can debunk lies and bullshit. It's like truth seekers, intellectuals, and bullshit detectors have no value to women. I don't get why. How can they not be impressed by truth? Truth is the highest value to me, so why isn't it impressive to women?

Are you sure, it doesn't differ by culture? Women are comparatively brainless compared to men. So it will boil down to power and status.

In a matriarchy (the west) or anarchy (mexico, russia, phillipines I guess) its useless to be an intellectual - no status. In a patriarchy, Im sure more girls would be impressed with true intellectuals. Perhaps ancient Athens. Perhaps current day Orthodox Jews?

I rarely use the word loser. In this case you can hold me accountable cause I mean it.

Some LOSERS say that women in the west today go for thugs and bad boys because these men are more genetically superior. In truth, it is because women receive their views of who is superior from their environment, rather than absolute biology.

That's why Zionism and communism are so successful when they are the only media images presented. Fully brainwashed populace who think being a bad ass is the right way to be.

[EvilBaga]

I do not understand your use of the word loser. Explain.

It is possible its completely environmental. Certainly partially environmental.
But heres a different view : http://www.love-shy.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... tas#p76660

Quoted from that article, written by fschmidt

This is the key point that you are missing. When you understand why stupid immoral men are the optimal choice for women in feminist societies, everything else will fall into place. So here goes:

The men that women seek in feminist cultures are omegas, not alphas. I have explained this many times. I also discuss the different male mating strategies in my description of co-alpha males. So let's review the different male mating strategies and see when each strategy works best. But first, we must remember that evolution is based on survival and reproduction. The goal is to survive, reproduce, and have your offspring do the same. So let's look at the options.

alpha - A successful alpha can have many children but takes high survival risks to do it. To make the risks worth while, the alpha has a harem that he mate-guards. The prize for getting to the top is exclusive access to a large number of females. In modern times, survival risks are low. But mate-guarding is banned in feminist societies, particularly with multiple females. The alpha instinct will drive this man to success and dominance in the male hierarchy but all this effort is wasted because the prize is not available. There is little evolutionary benefit to becoming a fortune 500 CEO. The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children. So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this.

beta - This is a compromise strategy of allying with an alpha to be part of the winning team. If your team wins, you get access to females, not as many as the alpha, but still some. And if your team loses, you are less exposed to survival risk. This strategy requires being a dependable guy that the alpha can count on without being too ambitious. In modern times, this strategy leads to becoming a good employee. This man is dedicated to his work and is a reliable provider. In modern times, this strategy has little evolutionary benefit. Thanks to feminism, mate-guarding is prohibited. The lower survival risk is no benefit now. So this strategy is inferior to alpha today. As a result, women today find betas unattractive and will only use them as needed for material benefits.

omega - These are the lowest men in status. They are not good providers and so are not good for long term relationships. These men reproduce through seduction. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they are not part of any alliance with alphas or betas, they do not hesitate to chase other men's wives. Women are attracted to these men specifically based on their seduction skill because this, passed on to the woman's sons, will spread her genes. The effectiveness of the omega strategy depends on the effectiveness of mate-guarding in a culture. In primitive times, mate-guarding was moderately effective, so omega survived but didn't thrive. In patriarchal societies, mate-guarding is highly effective and omegas become complete losers who are avoided by women. But in modern feminist cultures, mate-guarding is banned so omegas have by far the best strategy. Omegas are immoral but not necessarily stupid. But feminist culture combined with contraception has made stupidity a huge benefit. Smart omegas who want to avoid being stuck with child support will use contraception. It is generally the stupid omegas who don't use contraception. So by far the best male strategy today is to be a stupid omega. Women recognize this, which is why they are sexually excited by these winners (stupid omegas). It's true that women don't recognize this consciously. What women do recognize instinctually is which types of men are most successful at reproducing, and then women seek this type of man.

co-alpha - These men cooperative dominate a society and divide up the women using monogamy. The co-alpha strategy is about the same survival risk level as beta and about the same reproductive potential. The advantage of co-alpha is that a co-alpha tribe will beat a alpha/beta tribe in warfare because co-alphas all have more of a vested interest in tribal success. (The betas are always at risk of losing favor with the alpha, thereby losing reproductive access, so they have less of a vested interest in the tribe than co-alphas do.) The co-alpha strategy is the most effective mate-guarding strategy because co-alphas mate-guard cooperatively, protecting each other's wives, which makes things impossible for omegas. Co-alphas completely depend on cooperation. For this reason, co-alphas are highly moral and worry about things like justice all the time. When co-alphas are in control, you have patriarchy and a great respect for all traits that contribute to society, including intelligence, honesty, etc. In modern times, co-alphas are the ultimate losers. Mate-guarding is banned and cooperation fails. While modern women have no respect for betas, they are still willing to marry them for the material benefit and will simply cheat on their beta husband with omegas. But modern women will avoid co-alpha males like the plague because co-alphas are harder to cheat on and their failure to cooperate means that they have no advantage of any kind in modern culture. Co-alphas will likely be incels.

I think the argument speaks for itself. I do not know how much of it is right, but definitely it is part of the story. The 'thugs' are not 'genetically superior'. Indeed they will lead civilization back to the likes of current day Zimbabwe in due time. But they are superior at convincing women that they can get other women to sleep with them. By the sexy son hypothesis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis), this would make them attractive.

[Adama]

I do not understand your use of the word loser. Explain.

It is possible its completely environmental. Certainly partially environmental.
But heres a different view : http://www.love-shy.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... tas#p76660

Quoted from that article, written by fschmidt

This is the key point that you are missing. When you understand why stupid immoral men are the optimal choice for women in feminist societies, everything else will fall into place. So here goes:

The men that women seek in feminist cultures are omegas, not alphas. I have explained this many times. I also discuss the different male mating strategies in my description of co-alpha males. So let's review the different male mating strategies and see when each strategy works best. But first, we must remember that evolution is based on survival and reproduction. The goal is to survive, reproduce, and have your offspring do the same. So let's look at the options.

alpha - A successful alpha can have many children but takes high survival risks to do it. To make the risks worth while, the alpha has a harem that he mate-guards. The prize for getting to the top is exclusive access to a large number of females. In modern times, survival risks are low. But mate-guarding is banned in feminist societies, particularly with multiple females. The alpha instinct will drive this man to success and dominance in the male hierarchy but all this effort is wasted because the prize is not available. There is little evolutionary benefit to becoming a fortune 500 CEO. The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children. So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this.

beta - This is a compromise strategy of allying with an alpha to be part of the winning team. If your team wins, you get access to females, not as many as the alpha, but still some. And if your team loses, you are less exposed to survival risk. This strategy requires being a dependable guy that the alpha can count on without being too ambitious. In modern times, this strategy leads to becoming a good employee. This man is dedicated to his work and is a reliable provider. In modern times, this strategy has little evolutionary benefit. Thanks to feminism, mate-guarding is prohibited. The lower survival risk is no benefit now. So this strategy is inferior to alpha today. As a result, women today find betas unattractive and will only use them as needed for material benefits.

omega - These are the lowest men in status. They are not good providers and so are not good for long term relationships. These men reproduce through seduction. Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality. Since they are not part of any alliance with alphas or betas, they do not hesitate to chase other men's wives. Women are attracted to these men specifically based on their seduction skill because this, passed on to the woman's sons, will spread her genes. The effectiveness of the omega strategy depends on the effectiveness of mate-guarding in a culture. In primitive times, mate-guarding was moderately effective, so omega survived but didn't thrive. In patriarchal societies, mate-guarding is highly effective and omegas become complete losers who are avoided by women. But in modern feminist cultures, mate-guarding is banned so omegas have by far the best strategy. Omegas are immoral but not necessarily stupid. But feminist culture combined with contraception has made stupidity a huge benefit. Smart omegas who want to avoid being stuck with child support will use contraception. It is generally the stupid omegas who don't use contraception. So by far the best male strategy today is to be a stupid omega. Women recognize this, which is why they are sexually excited by these winners (stupid omegas). It's true that women don't recognize this consciously. What women do recognize instinctually is which types of men are most successful at reproducing, and then women seek this type of man.

co-alpha - These men cooperative dominate a society and divide up the women using monogamy. The co-alpha strategy is about the same survival risk level as beta and about the same reproductive potential. The advantage of co-alpha is that a co-alpha tribe will beat a alpha/beta tribe in warfare because co-alphas all have more of a vested interest in tribal success. (The betas are always at risk of losing favor with the alpha, thereby losing reproductive access, so they have less of a vested interest in the tribe than co-alphas do.) The co-alpha strategy is the most effective mate-guarding strategy because co-alphas mate-guard cooperatively, protecting each other's wives, which makes things impossible for omegas. Co-alphas completely depend on cooperation. For this reason, co-alphas are highly moral and worry about things like justice all the time. When co-alphas are in control, you have patriarchy and a great respect for all traits that contribute to society, including intelligence, honesty, etc. In modern times, co-alphas are the ultimate losers. Mate-guarding is banned and cooperation fails. While modern women have no respect for betas, they are still willing to marry them for the material benefit and will simply cheat on their beta husband with omegas. But modern women will avoid co-alpha males like the plague because co-alphas are harder to cheat on and their failure to cooperate means that they have no advantage of any kind in modern culture. Co-alphas will likely be incels.

I think the argument speaks for itself. I do not know how much of it is right, but definitely it is part of the story. The 'thugs' are not 'genetically superior'. Indeed they will lead civilization back to the likes of current day Zimbabwe in due time. But they are superior at convincing women that they can get other women to sleep with them. By the sexy son hypothesis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis), this would make them attractive.

I have a high level of respect for Fschmidt and his hypothesis. He just might be correct.

Sexy son. Interesting.

[Winston]

Hi all,
I realized some things recently:

- It seems that women do not handle the truth as well as men do, for some reason. They prefer political correctness. This is true even of foreign women. For some reason, women seem to fear truth, and in fact too much truth is offensive to them. Thus, around women you can't be too truthful it seems, lest you risk offending them. Any of you notice this? It's like it is in their nature to shut out truth or something.

Why is this? Why do women fear truth and prefer lies, fakery and political correctness? Is it cause they are deceitful by nature and empty, so truth scares them?

- Have you noticed that when a forum is full of guys only, that there is hardly any political correctness? But when a forum has women in it, it starts to become more and more politically correct, as though a "hand of censorship" takes over? Then every guy has to be very careful about what he says lest he get attacked by the "politically correct police" mentality that is very defensive and easily offended.

Why is that? Why does the female nature lean toward political correctness so much?

This is even sort of true for foreign women too. Even if they are more down to earth and friendly, you still get the vibe that they prefer to hear something politically correct or innocent, rather than the truth.

Here is an interesting rant by Steve Hoca about "Why do people fear the truth":



It does seem though, that most people run from truth as though they fear it. They prefer to embrace whatever is popular or politically correct instead. That's what makes us different here. We are not like most people in that we do not fear truth. We embrace the truth and love it and pursue it too. That makes our frequency different from others as well as our level of awareness. We may not all agree on everything, but at least we all see through the BS of the mainstream media's pathetic tactics and mind control.

[Winston]

Also, have you guys noticed that women are much more likely to say "But not all of them are like that" than men are, in response to a truthful observation? Why do they always respond with that line to truthful observations?

[well-informed]

If most american men knew about the better opportunities they have by dating women abroad, american women would be extremely scared. But american men that date abroad are still in the minority today and feminists want to keep it that way.

If all american men are awake like all of us here in the forum, that'd be bad for american women. Think about it

- More men would stop kissing their ass, buying them gifts
- More men would not marry them, because they're simply not good for marriage, etc , etc , etc

Women don't want to lose the power they have, that's why they don't like the truth.
Mainstream media does it's best to hide the truth from us

[FreeYourMind]

The men's rights blogs are growing very rapidly. A heightened awareness of how screwed men are in U.S. society can be found in the way comments after mainstream articles on the internet have turned in our favor. All it will take is 5 or 10 percent American men to forsake the current system, whether for foreign women or MGTOW, for it to implode. Aware men tend to be the creative and productive types; without us the beast will starve financially, as it is already through its own greed and corruption.

[Winston]

Btw all, have you all noticed that around women, you gotta be MUCH MUCH more careful about what you say, than you do around men? Why is that? Is it because women are more judgmental than men? Or because we instinctively know that they hate the truth and are offended by it?

[ssjparris]

@ winston hey hey winston yes your right about the line they give " well...there not ALL like that !" when in most cases they are like that. all american women are after money. very tiny few are not after money but a husband and family. So when you tell them about 90% of them are like that ( money grubbing women ) they give the line. or if you say 50% of women are after money in america they still give the ol' line. HAHAHAHA.

yes, yes exactly you have to be really really careful of what to say with american women. i used to be cautious as hell. but i decided to give up and just express myself. forget it, if they don't like what i say.