re: "Are men jealous that women can create life and they can't?" - 2018

Original post: 2018:— 2025 edited

“Women create life.”

This misconception is a symptom, “born” of a cultural conflation that breeds unhealthy ego, mistranslation.

• Cultural sympathy
• possible overcompensation
• generally a complimentary exaggeration stemming from the sole fact that carriage is uncomfortable & painful and birth is hell.
• And is primarily what that breeds this …”credit” system where women are entitled to be credited with “creating” life because of her physical labor, which is predictable because it’s brutal, understandable because it’s better than trivializing the act, but inaccurate.

And the fact that this was ever a question shows the danger of semantics, some people actually believe that slogan or expression as fact instead of just digging into the simple question:

“Women create life. But do they? What is she actively, actually doing before the delivery? Which she also does NOT decide when it happens. So exactly is she doing beside being a passive party until suddenly active? In an automatic process that has nothing to do with her will, what exactly is she doing?”

• Carrying life? Yes, non-debatable.
• She’s an Important factor in delivering life? OBVIOUSLY.
• But she herself “creating” ? Hardly.

The expression “women create life” & it’s variations are a social sympathy badge with good intentions, “creator of life” is a romanticized semantic pedestal with no grounds in reality.

There’s no cultural "interpretations" here, there’s giving due respect and then there’s a pedestal for women (as usual)—

• there's overstating one's importance (with GOOD intentions but ultimately conflating one thing for another) and there's accurately applying respect that’s due without pushing borderline deification.

Deification: Which is what this is really about— inflated self-importance, hence the tone of the original question in the first place, as well as it’s oblivious stance on an existential inaccuracy .

And lastly, the expression is a genuine indicator of misunderstanding biology. We focus on the outcome: “where the baby came from physically” & not how passive her role was in the entire thing.

• Otherwise, lock a woman in a room. And ask her to “create life”/ a child. Is she going to "create" life then? If not, then there you go. There’s your creator.
• She’s not creating anything. The heartbeat, the electrical emissions, the movement begins in her body, because she incubates life.
• Which is not a lesser role than a creator, it’s simply more accurate, transparent & less delusional and obnoxious.

Part 1# “Creator of Life fallacy”

To create is to bring into being, generate aka ‘produce by oneself’. Several microorganisms can pull it off, others not so small, many sea life can asexually reproduce.

They are the creators of their young, spawn, clones, successors.

And last i checked, women weren’t asexually reproductive; If they were, then they would be indeed: Creating another person, for it would be without outside help, at that point I’d surmise women were damn near demi-god status, to “create life” by yourself naturally is a serious feat.

But humans, being a dimorphic species: It takes two to create life, not one. Because male & female are two halves of an incomplete “true” human being.

Fact is, sperm itself is not even something that she produces, it’s the production of the man. Her part being more painfully hellish doesn’t give her charity credit points over his role.

(His body created the sperm that allows her to even conceive in the first place, she has no place in the process if he doesn’t plant the seed.)

• The maturation process of a baby, is not a conscious decision on her part, as is sperm production not conscious for men.
• The spermatozoa in junction with other gametes, is simply doing what it’s programmed to do: Survive
• Which is why when a woman doesn’t want the baby, she can’t choose to “Not to create life” or halt the maturation process on her own volition, which is basically a god.
• For she’s not in control, she is not creating anything (by herself). That’s why she needs further outside help or interference, to abort aka assassinate the life to be/not to be.

This “creator” narrative would entail women consciously code, design & specify the integrity molecules/ or genes of the baby: eye color, allergy, strengths, etc. Aka CREATING the child’s makeup with active work, like men do when they “create” cities, bridges, roads, etc.

---

Part 2# “Woman, the Incubator”

Simply germinating his seed with 50% of her DNA, is not creation of her power. For the seed “of life” still originated inside him, not her.

It is joint creation, duo, two:

• Again, the seed, something a man provided in the first place, is not her creating life, that is incubating said seed, her eggs providing a home for the sperm. So she’s a housing unit, a “genetic refuge”.
• Finally: The Woman is simply nurturing what’s already there. No different from a chicken sitting on an egg, incubation. Without the warmth, the baby doesn’t grow, it will freeze and die.

Women are incubators of life, not creators of life. I can see how that slogan would be so so flattering to one’s ego especially since men carry in most sections of society, and childbirth is the one thing men can’t do so women can in a way always claim it & then be called “creator of life”?

I get it. Makes us feel good, but it’s incorrect.

To make a city is a team effort.

• Johnny, & Billy starts a project.
• Johnny, & Billy worked on the project. Johnny provided half the means to complete it.
• Billy finished the construction project, Johnny twisted his ankle.
• Because Billy labored more than Johnny in the end, did Billy “CREATE” the end product as a whole or was the outcome a team effort in the first place?

---

Part 3# “Jealousy fallacy”

Men are no more jealous of that, than women are jealous of the fact that the majority of the:

Electronic privileges produced by majorly males, (including the vibrator) —— women & men enjoy advanced maintenance of advanced society that men die to maintain.

• Scientific advancements pioneered, invented that everyone enjoy (women contribute, mostly men carrying tho)
• First world securities & Protections that both men & women enjoy (women contribute, mostly men carrying tho)
• Less office comfy, dangerous jobs that even the most driven women don’t tread, not even as a dare: Are occupied by men (Women do not contribute equitably, men are carrying the team, dying doing it, but not called “creators” of anything. Why isn’t that a topic more often?)
• As a result, so are the occupational death tolls occupied by men, in fact, every death statistic tbh.

• The Malls built—— That Women, as i see it, enjoy on mass.

(Women work too, contribute) but again, majorly Men work, carry— the more hazardous fields in droves because somebody has to do it, but despite keeping the Country’s lights on, Sewage cleaned, Monoliths built & maintained year round:

The Men don’t hold it over women’s heads, and they are justified to do so. Men aren’t enabled by articles & academia to invent womansults anything & everything every other year to make life a living hell for half of the species, because peace is too boring a concept to entertain for the western world.

Success is an allergy to the privileged world that forgot what real collapse feels like.

SO—

the one thing that some women (not all, cause I’ve never heard any woman In my tribe use the expression, not to my recent memory) like to use as a bragging right, is something that they couldn’t do by themselves.

It’s ironic, it’s redundant, it’s inaccurate, it’s silly, but I get it — is the point.

🛡️Sidebar: Clarifying the reality of this check is not to diminish the very real physical tax women labor to carry & deliver little ones.

This is solely about dispelling a very western, a very privileged delusional self-importance a lot of women (as usual) are allowed to carry in their minds without challenge most of their lives. And this delusion only exists in her heads because it’s planted there by outlets, family members repeating talking-points and societal mouth pieces.

Meanwhile the actual creators are unacknowledged as blue collar NPC’s, the one’s that make your civilizational advanced experience even possible.♂️

So curb the pre-emptive defense mechanisms, this isn’t a declaration of war, it’s an overdue reality check. 🛡️

---

While some women (not enough) rightfully take pride in childbirth, delivering new life. Many women do so for the wrong reasons, and casually repeat this term “create”/”creator”/”creating”.

Which is nothing short of fascinating.

At the end of the day, it’s not a contest.

---

A kind replier in 2018 brought up a point that

“Last time I checked, the sperm needs to be met by an egg, which the woman produces on a monthly basis, before it can become a fetus. Sperm by itself cannot create human life. So, in the equation of sperm-egg-incubation, it’s 2/3 a female function, 1/3 male..”

Here’s the issue with ”2/3 vs 1/3“: Ratios

Inversely, logically, the egg needs to met by the sperm to be of any use just as sperm needs to be met by an egg to then ALLOW the woman to form a fetus, automatically btw, she’s not actively creating a fetus.

And thus with that clarification— Women & Men are too similar/parallel in reproductive function to pit against in yet another silly contest, because that seems to be westerners main diet: strife, competition, & contention.

It’s no wonder your sex relations are amazing & birthrates are through the roof ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The testicles are responsible for producing & recycling sperm when expelled. As are the ovaries produce & replace eggs during ovulation. Common theme is a “Cycle”:

• Production & recycling (Egg/Sperm) 1/3 (For men it’s manual, for women it’s automatic. Both are important to the baby making)
• The Sperm needs an egg to be of use, inversely The Egg needs sperm to be of use 2/3 (Both are important.) As I said, it’s inverse. Both are mechanically useless without the other.

The differentiating factors are as such:

1. The woman birthing the actual child (Final Phase, Omega)
2. But oddly enough the man expels sperm (potential person) in an eerie parallel fashion to birth, and if the first birthing process of the spermlings doesn’t happen, the process can’t begin for her or the would be child, thus she has no place in the process until she is activated. (First Phase, Alpha)
3. He is The Beginning, she is The End of the process, can’t have a pregnancy without a catalyst, can’t have a baby without carriage of seed.

And again, for the last time: if her urethral pathway do not receive the sperm in the first place, egg doesn’t receive sperm, the sperm are useless, and will expire. Eggs are filtered out on a monthly basis thus dying in their own right, useless, serving no purpose. (3/3)

• Point being: (Both are important) & not interchangeable but they are indeed parallel, scarily so.

For the function of joint creation of life. Joint. 2 makes 1+ and even if it was 2/3 to 1/3, is that supposed to be an unsubtle powerplay?

I repeat ,if men had this attitude regarding civilization itself, nothing would get done, it’s just ugliness and division mindset very common in privilege world that thinks it can afford to play gender war mongering every other day with people’s minds, it’s disgusting.

It’s not contest, because it’s literally not a contest.

You’re on the same team, make a mental note of that, instead of discarding that reality to make or fight battle that doesn’t exist.

2025 edit:

• the threshold of life
• Life giver
• deliverer of life
• carriage of life
• & very very generously: "Life bringer”

those are romanticized, respectful and accurate forms of address for mothers without giving them deification honorifics they don’t deserve that logically, biologically and very very literally makes no sense.

“ life givers", I particularly like that one and “threshold of life” is my #1, stumbled on that in a passing thought in 2023–24, the most accurate. The female genital pathway is traditionally the literal threshold unto life itself.

Some women do die giving birth almost as if giving up their life to deliver the baby.

• Even if she survives, so much of her energy is expended to transition the baby unto life, the mother in a way is giving life force in a sense (a romanticization, but it's simply an illustration, still makes more sense than "creation"),
• her nutrients were shared with the baby in similar fashion and through “microchimerism” the baby’s conception gives the mother legitimate buffs, like regeneration & some immunities. It’s some cool shit, ngl.

“Microchimerism is the two-way exchange of cells between the mother and the fetus (and back) during pregnancy. These fetal cells can persist in the mother's body for decades, lodging in organs like the heart, brain, and bone marrow.” - ♀️+👶🍼=💪

Which is why I used “ possible overcompensation ” lightly.

I chalk the expression in question to just social charity brownie points, because women on a microscopic level are pretty awesome, like comic book level shit.

Having a baby results in “microchimerism”, no, they don’t build cities but Women are plenty cool as is without needing out of proportion semantics or a new cultural self-help slogan to exaggerate what already is borderline science-fiction level abilities that somehow is not getting the highlight it probably should get in woman worship culture.

• So inflate an inaccuracy but overlook actual, factual cool feats of women’s physiology? Gynocentrism is weird lol.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7543167/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4989712/

TL;DR “Threshold of life” makes more accurate sense than the “creator of life” expression.

The original expression works as meaningless hyperbole romanticism to make women feel good about themselves in a biological ritual that in reality requires no active skill or qualification, just passive availability up to a fixed point.

So while the “creator” narrative is a strictly ‘socially understandable’, yet albeit obnoxious attempt at a compliment stemming from the unfair physical brutality of women’s role in the matter, unfortunately the delivery, implication, “credit” system is also nonsensical social coddling.

In antiquity, people were uneducated, passionately in awe of everything they couldn’t rationalize properly. Back then people could afford to be ignorant because they had no means to correct themselves, so I’m sure to them childbirth did seem like women were “creating” life in the womb all by themselves somehow, engineering every single detail, unconscious, like deities oblivious to their own power. To natives, cave people, impressionable people of simpler times, where everything exotic was worth religious reverence. I’m sure that childlike fetishism “creator of life” actually made sense to them once upon a time.

But today? Willful, Classic western societal gyno-ego stroking..

“Challenge norms, except the one’s that flatter my ego.”

It’s only when many people (ie. the title of the question) apparently take it very seriously or literal enough to form a worldview around it or use it in a sentence with a straight face, at minimum; Or at worst: let it go to your head? Then we’re beyond hyperbole, & then there’s a problem.

That then leaves the realms of non-existent jealously or possibly wanting men to be jealous for some reason (2/3 1/3 language, overcompensation / competition, us vs them language) and enters the domain of concern on part of what signals society is pushing in the first place, still pushing, why, and does it even know why to begin with. 🗿

LOL: Angry Feminist ATTACKS Trad Wives ('Dear Women' by modernity) Rigid norms are bad, unless they came from the “good guys”. ♀️

Nothing more feminist than degrading the life choices of other women because their contentment intimidates our feminist bubble.

Contrived attacks against other women cosplaying as feminist cultural analysis for the sake of ...women. Because you'd think those women being happy, safe, content, secure, cared for, & also providing for their home- you'd think that would be enough, right? 

Women can be whatever they want to be, except *THAT*, except happy, not that kind of happy, ew. 

You know what makes people happy? Another invented mansult, another article bringing people together in the comments--- to do what? Fight, attack, ideologically wrestle and hate each other. Thanks Academia!👍

That’s the modern norm, contention, misery and animosity that's healthy. decline is good. That’s the norm we chose for the modern woman & man, that rigid ritual is good!

How DARE women try to build something with a male, someone we decided is your labor, burden & enemy and whatever other thinktank vocabulary we’ll feed the empowerment ladies next year & the year after that.  

Degrading yourselves by being an essential, crucial  beating heart of the household, cultivating future members that will keep your civilization off of life support.

Remember, marriage  takes away your agency, and lessens your impact in society. It’s not like mothers are pivotal to civilization being allowed to continue existing or something. No, you're irrelevant when you put that shackle on your finger.

It’s not "entirely degrading", but c’mon you can do better. *scoff

Why do that, when you could be slaving out here instead, paid labor (*chuh ching), commute everyday, swallowed up in the machine, also unacknowledged (because you’re literally just another cog in the machine of the corporation,  epitome of expendable. The caveat is, both the housewife & office worker are part of something bigger than themselves, playing a part, thats the similarity. Otherwise---), and give us your time until your biological clock runs out.

 

So slaving away in a finite dimension is okay, UNLESS in it's in your home as a wife. 

Remote work for some corporate titan? That's acceptable, so slaving away in your home box is okay, unless it's as a housewife-- then it's a problem.

So what this is really about, apparently slaving away at home is great, as long as it's on progressive terms, so instead of patriarchy setting the ground rules, you have us instead! There’s a cubicle out there with your name on it.  We're on your side! 👍 👍

Be the modern woman we told you to be or else you're degrading yourself.

"I'm Really Tired of All Men in Movies Being Failures, Actually" by JesterBell

22:55 --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1v93ZbeDGk

 Have the right opinions or you're the enemy, that includes women.

Obey OUR rigid norms-

like we're the new patriarchy but we coded our rigidity as "autonomy" or "self-actualization" to make it sound like a moral imperative so that you essentially obey a new set of rigid standards but not the norms WE decided FOR WOMEN that's bad. 

Because your freedom of choice matters so much to us, sincerely *3rd wave modern feminism:

Obey our rigid sensibilities that increases loneliness epidemics & divides or else you're not woman enough.

Serious note**** Imagine it--- Calling someone’s life a fantasy, not some deranged fetish, but a legitimate life decision (civilization itself can benefit from, which negates then need to circumvent natural native population boost via illegal immigrants out of desperation because your women & men want nothing to do with each other because you made the sexes into war factions, good job!) is branded a "fantasy"- because you don't have their life or? 

Chuck Schumer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwnbk6lxdo

Perhaps Women being happy in that "trad" formula contradicts what we were told to believe, I can just feel the sisterhood from here.  The support is overflowing:

And one of her strongest points in the video that Knowles doesn't address is the the life these tiktok/ trad wives online sell or promote is "fictitious" because it's only a polished highlight movie trailer into their lives, apparently it not being a 24 deep dive makes the entire thing fallacious.

But how is that any different from a woman working at twitter showing off a wine dispenser or the cafeteria, or a google employee showing off their workspace?

Is their career path then void & null because we didn't get the FULL SCOOP?

See the real issue is, women are leaving the plantation to go back to something they were told was the original plantation they were freed from.

Women submitting to the husband isn't slavery, it's respect. And don't forget that Feminisms original hard fought achievements applies to housewives too, so they have education opportunities (before they have children, to optimize their time resource), you're not in the 50s so men are in a much different place.

Even as far as the 50s were concerned, things aren't as rigid as people want you to believe. In a office, on a work site, on an oil rig, rigid simply means "normalcy" or "role". 

"Role-phobia", since feminists can just make up mansults that people somehow take seriously. 

I just made up Rolephobia, the irrational fear of structure & people having roles. Specifically gender roles, ooooOOOHhhhh, be afraid. 

 Even though to have a place in any job requires having a role. 🧠 But within a marriage, then it's a problem. 🧠🧠 but my oh my, all this loneliness, confusion, opting out, I have an idea, let's abolish more & more trad standards, and dismantle more and more norms & replace them with MY NORMS that I decided is better for everyone. I'm helping! I'm a good person.)

Women’s choice, her choice all the way until it complicates the “women must be disconnected, impressionable, miserable, & obedient to our norms only- so we can keep the gender war maintained” narrative going. 

Women are oppressed by patriarchy, but imposing self-worship, vanity, burnout culture, isolation & (for many as we're finding out) loneliness: That is a much better alternative.

Rigid norms are bad, unless it came from  the “good guys”. ♀️ Expectations of womanhood are up to women's choice, until we find out it isn't by the people who said it was women's "choice". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44jDgYU7BE&list=WL&index=76

Apparently No Way Home gets worse every time you watch it

it's the contrivances for me. You know how fast this movie would've ended if they just let Marko handle literally everyone of those villains solo?

Lmfao. He just kept urning into dust & disappearing. WHY, doesn't he want to return to penny?

Where did he even go? He was the most reasonable one who wanted to get it over with, why didn't he work with Peters team.

That and the speed nerfing of Goblin in the final fight just to make Holland Peter look better, the sudden rewrites of certain characters, namely Octavius, various MCU-isms like the humor killing the pacing, the lack of other heroes in the matter. And Tobey's Parker was underpowered as fuck, he's THE MOST experienced, and you don't bank on it, or even let us see him fight Norman again.

Or Peter 2 & Peter 3 fucking up cause they're not used to fighting in a team, when Peter fought alongside Harry in Spider-man 3 with no issues. Bullshavick. And the fact that ppl forgetting peter is not erasing social security, documentation, photos, texts, , fingerprints, dental, EVIDENCE. Just a lot of gaps. It does get worse more times you watch it because of the plot holes, not because you can't enjoy it, and i'm usually the one to say the quiet part out loud & rip things apart but i really wanted NWH to age better than it actually is lol. Mainly because it's the best of the 3 Spider-boy movies, but it's still this flimsy. This was definitely a theater tailored fan-pleaser movie. It's better than fans getting antagonized but gimmicks that appease is still a gimmick, and gimmicks expire.

Anime Overview: Neon Genesis Evangelion & Rebuild movies

the price of progress is decline.

its more than unfortunate that the economic/social depression & isolation factor is not only relevant but relevant to most first world countries now, sheesh.

I liked the build movies not being exactly like NGE & not emulating same execution of the instrumentality project, which confused me for years. Rebuild's ending was a lot more traditional, even if typical but it was more satisfying.

But NGE, both endings, were more significant in subtext & original vision than the Rebuild's conventionally unconventional, modern conclusion.

People don't appreciate End of E' enough tho.

Robert Rodriguez - The Lava Girl (the subtext of lavagirl)

Having watched this recently this year after almost a decade. Now that i think about it, the whole "girl's arc is realizing her potential aka she's special" trope is usually trash but Lavagirls realization tied damn near directly into Max's own sense of self & lack thereof.

So unlike Sharkboy who possibly represented the kid Max wanted to be, unapologetic, oozing with confidence, badass, overqualified.

Lavagirl was the avatar of his own self-esteem, an inner powerhouse making a comeback.

Over the course of the movie, him affirming his own confidence through the adventure & remembering what Lavagirl actually is to Planet Drool- really gives a more meaningful context to the whole thing beyond just "her realizing" she's special.

Which is where A LOT of movies with this "empowerment" fetish, lose the plot.

And because she laid down her life to save her bff, so not only it made sense in narrative but it was earned. This campy af, low budget movie had no business having that kind of heart.

The movie is hammy, it's writing is garbage but it had well intentioned subtext to learn from thats still relevant in adulthood, and in some ways, it has more relevant messages for one as an adult.


"Lavagirl: Max! I am light. Thank you.

Max: You were always that. It had nothing to do with me.

Lavagirl: But now I know. So thank you."


Homie Max even after becoming a dream god, still so humble. Love that exchange.

Why Thanos (IW) works and All For One doesn’t *2025

 

Thanos works better than All For One because simply: Thanos had a code, he had restraint.

Why does this matter? Because people surviving him made sense, he’s easily older than All For One, more genocidal, but he is not as psychotic as All For One is, AFO was cartoonishly evil.

A mature villain with a code, one who “respects” his enemies’ resistance, and even when agitated & or loses his temper, he still doesn’t go out of his way to murk someone unprovoked and the movie began with him killing & torturing people, yet in his own bizarre way, it was for a reason.

example: he won’t sadistically kill someone unless personally slighted or disrespected. Especially someone who’s failed him multiple times. (Loki)

That comet shower could’ve killed someone, so could that black hole he yeeted at Strange. The IW cast had plot armor too, yet when he had them at his mercy after the adrenaline died down, he was leveled out. He stayed his hand.

They got to live because he allowed it.

AFO? Was blue-balled, there’s a difference between allowance & mercy and being thwarted, cockblocked by NPC’s that’s not in the same league.

AFO shows no mercy, it’s not even in his character to do so, that’s why it doesn’t work.

AFO reminded me of a demonic Vampire Count for the longest time, that’s how eerie he is and you’re telling me he failed to kill Jiro of all people? Lmfao.

Thanos’ sparing those he knows isn’t a threat on Earth, even him choosing to leave Titan vs ending Quill after getting the time stone, he chose to leave even though Quill shot him and pistol whipped him in the goddamn face before.

Peter’s fire & willingness to oblige Gamora’s request back on Knowhere, Thanos verabally said “I like him”, and let that man live, likely on that fact and the fact that they both cared for Gamora. It makes sense.

That is why Infinity War isn’t ruined by as many contrivances like My Hero Academia final arc’s plot armor fest. (tho it has plenty of it’s own)

I shit you not- All For One had a chic in his grasp, to take her quirk and just crush her throat afterwards:

But because there were like a bunch of heroes (aka Gov. Military Police) watching, he had witnesses there to scare the shit out of, killing her would’ve been an easy vehicle to amp up the stakes.

Like Madara did in that desert fight scene with him vs the ninja alliance.

She wasn’t a 1A student, just some random nobody but even SHE was coddled by Horikoshi. Immediately saved by Hawks.

KH refused to let AFO cook, every step of the way. Even the meaningless randoms had the protective hand of God hovering over them.

why even make AFO that strong and that evil if he can’t prove that shit in practice beside just being an asshole with the CrAAA_aaazy evil faces he makes.

Jiro, Tokoyami, Hawks, survives AFO, (Endeavor surviving makes sense, he’s a beast but even then, all he is is a pyrokinetic, that’s not in the same league as AFO realistically) and even random NPC’s are surviving this guy. (the gif with the hero chic is from Season 7 e12)

Nick Jr. level writing and that’s an insult to Nick, because all I know is one of Avatar The Last Airbender’s most significant plot threads was a goddamn ethnic-cleansing to prevent the coming of their world’s iteration of a god, a genocide.

As the years go by, and people get the Horkoshi-”sensei” boner out their mouths & magically figure out that My Hero was ALWAYS garbage after crying “hater hater” or “I have faith in horikoshi sensei” for 10 years —

Don’t forget how it all started:

It was a silly ass, fun, contrivance driven, goofy story about how a kid with no quirk actually had the best quirk: “Luck”

Bro was so blessed, Jesus asked for Izuku’s luck stat to be nerfed.

Meaningless school festivals, exams, training camps, field trips, with the occasional edgy villains but then back to our regular broadcasted “ACADEMIA” that’s how it started.

If it stayed kiddy & stupid (minus the pedo bait treatment of the girls) I wouldn’t be on MHA’s ass this much, or as much.

Waaaaaay more than luck Jiro. You little snot.

So why — WHY even turn MHA into a serious tone narrative, a gritty type of show, add more characters, making more work for yourself.

A story that shows blood but rarely spills it (unless it’s a randoms randoms random like “Native” or a scumbag like Midnight who never should’ve existed because her death meant less than nothing) but you have beings that can level cities. Why go there, when you can’t deliver on that tone.

Horikoshi wanted the escalation of a seinen while adhering to the goofy writing of a 1 week old saturday morning cartoon.

Thanos was holding back and still won —

while BRO AFO was in his prime via rewind

& still couldn’t get those people out his face. He knew his time limit, he didn’t have the crutch Thanos had (the gauntlet) AFO was the damn gauntlet and still didn’t cook, not even with Yagi, couldn’t even kill an oldass, handicapped, quirkless that he has a personal hatred for.

Fail fail fail fail fail. THIS IS our final boss?!

He just didn’t fly over the clouds to get to Shigaraki, just allowed himself to get bullied. Lmfao.

Blasts a damn mountain buster cannon at Tokoyami & Jiro and all they walk away with is some bruises & a lost ear lobe. Not even severe burns, but an ear lobe is gone.

As much as I love the meme of it looking back on it year after year, it’s still —

Unbelievable how hoe’d All For One was.

And after that brilliant buildup from Season 1–3, the shadows, the menace, the pulled strings, his authority, and this is how he’s treated in the end.

I’m not saying Endgame was any better, most of Endgame was also trash in contrivances but Horikoshi had the reigns here, he had a time deadline, yes — but he & only he chose to do that to old boy after all that good buildup.

Cause remember even Movie 1 ‘Two Heroes’ hyped up All For One possessing that Temu Magneto, literally possessing him like a ghost.

The movie was gassing up this dude’s appearance in Season 3, thats the rep he had.

And that’s how he went out. Twice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I ain’t saying give him a happy end or a respectable one but if was gonna be that evil & cook a scheme that delicious, let my man’s finish his plate, all I’m sayin.

Otherwise Endgame Thanos lacks for the exact same reasons AFO does.

Trump & J.D. Vance Just Nuked the Conservative Civil War | Episode 95

americans are way too feminized, & by extension making "feminization" a bad thing when it shouldn't, by allowing it to escalate to daily pearl clutching and emotional outrage, & offense every 2 seconds..

all of this would be prevented if they just told people "No" more often. liberalism is a karens ideology, very very hysterical, well intentioned, self-obsessed, self-righteous and emotionally charged belief system that can get out of control & lose it's original good intentioned purpose. And destroy more than it creates.

Chronicle (2012) Movie Reaction Mashup

the source of healing & resolve is usually the source of the pain itself. And the source of that vitriol for him, was his father. Therapy could've possibly helped the boy see past his father, but what Andrew needed beyond an appointment, was hope & a better father, or a supplant father figure, a mentor, simple as that.

No one needs to sit in a chair, & pay me in order for me to tell them that, common sense stuff.

Therapy is a business, not a charity.

The go to isn't therapy 24/7, it's purpose, it's hope. Something you achieve on your own time.

Andrew needed hope, emotionally available hope.

So much of what we blow out of proportion in our minds can be fixed with our own will, you just need people around you with wisdom. And if you lack that network, then therapy is the way.

But just running to therapy skips the natural resolution process which is two simple things: Purpose & hope = something to live for.

Andrew just had bad luck & bad judgement.

"Mankeeping Is Why Women Are Done With Dating?" * The Hypocrisy of women complaining about lack of reciprocity

“”According to Pew Research, only 38 percent of single women in the US are currently looking for a relationship. Among single men, that number jumps to 61 percent. The gap says a lot. Women aren’t opting out of love. They’re opting out of being someone’s therapist with benefits.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mankeeping-is-why-women-are-done-with-dating/

Vice magazine asserts that 62% of single woman are opting out of dating because: they don’t want to be a male’s “therapist with benefits”.

Maybe I’m suffering from willful male blindness, but IMO, Vice’s assertion is highly unlikely.

Your thoughts?”

No blindness, the topic has validity & a hypocrisy.

🛡️There’s a double caveat to this that we miss: It’s no doubt many people in general are emotional vampires, & there’s no question that men aren’t reciprocating the support they receive specifically at the same rate, not that they don’t support women social/emotionally/physically at all, but not the exact same frequency, that is 100% true.

Why? because men aren’t as cognizant of emotional laboring as much as women are with the same intensity that women do.

That’s not on men, that’s just women’s wiring; but for men, however, one can be mindful to be more supportive. It not being a conscious concern is no excuse to be inconsiderate.


But the caveat to making this a national discussion (as if it’s not disgusting to consider caring for your children or giving a damn about your partner is now labeled “unpaid labor”, which is beyond alien and unacceptable)-

if you’ve had mothers or sisters or female friends at minimum, on top of partners, you’ll know that women cost every labor there is for men (including their monthly hormonal imbalances that you are expected to display understanding & patience with) and they do not always give that respect back either at the same volume, if at all. You can spend thousands on a woman, grand gestures & get none of that reciprocated. Buying women drinks most times isn’t reciprocated.

Soooo where’s “Womankeeping”? Is it woman+keeping? Or is it just giving a shit about the woman you are with?

Is it man+keeping? Or is it just giving a shit about the man, and the agenda this year is making being a partner a matter of burden & unpaid labor- as if the Federal Gov. should be paying women to do something as simple as care about other people or raise their own damn children.

Western Women are being groomed to be incompatible with stable human connection.

So women complaining about reciprocation is both understandable here, but \*ironic in grand scheme because one-sided deals once upon a time was just called

-

“the dating game”

and no one questioned that because women benefited.\* Point being: *It’s only a topic now because women are complaining or being signaled to complain about a disparity. So this isn’t about reciprocation solely or fairness, this is about women’s lack of gain & because women are the disgruntled, & due to that fact, only now does society give a damn.*

A relationship in modernity basically means “Her comfort & convenience”

🛡️ **The second caveat point is: Lesbian **women tend to perform more social/emotional labor than men regardless of relationship type**.

So what have we learned? Many Men don’t reciprocate, because women (gay or straight) do too much no matter who they love with. TL;DR men aren’t the problem here, actually-- because no matter who she dates, gay women tend to give more equitable emotional contribution, yet still give emotional labor inequivalently because that’s their socialization and instinct. Even two women can’t pace the other at exactly the same or “equal” volume. *Stop whipping men for not thinking like women, when lesbians go through the same exact challenges, with no man to blame.*

🛡️Thirdly, a lot of it has to do with personality, and the people you attract. I know a lot of emotionally available men, too much so tbh. And I emotionally/socially labor for almost everyone I know but I wouldn’t call it a “burden” just because they’re not doing the same for me at the exact same frequency. That’s dumb and petty.

Why? Cause how am I going to incriminate someone for not doing what I chose to do? AT THE SAME FREQUENCY? Not that they’re not doing it 0% which is neglect and abandonment but they’re not doing it at a volume I deem acceptable per what I chose to do.

**the common thread is moderating how much we give.**

(which is why some women opting out is a good thing, let the weak-links leave, let part of the problem remove itself. Let them be happy alone & free.)

\# Now to be fair, the common context is lack of “reciprocity” of being a one-man emotional support system, not the labor itself (allegedly), so let’s not misrepresent the case the they’re making

* However it is also true that American Women want their needs met at the exact same time, AND THEN DON’T RECIPROCATE what they do get from men, especially financially, psychologically, time labor, & physically. etc. So why are we sitting here pretending women have a moral high ground on **RECIPROCATING** of all concepts when getting something for nothing is damn near iconic for most western privileged women. 👁️👄👁️

Burnout is not exclusive to women in relationships, why do we think men have Mancaves in the first place? To get a break from social/emotional laboring for the woman. Where have you been the past 65 years? Always a victim narrative when outlets hijack the talking point, I don’t know how American men put up with it. Or how Society accepts this narrative that taking care of your own child is considered “unpaid labor”?

That’s not at all disrespectful, to any of us? Why doesn’t anyone ever challenge this crap? Just because they have credentials, doesn’t mean experts don’t have moments of ignorance.

If i’m not acknowledged or given a trophy for being a basic level decent human being, and or I’m not getting paid for it-- What the fuck kind of attitude is that?

Women are being set on a path to be the worst society has to offer.

Why do I say that? Think about it, for a while, I genuinely believed American males were the total issue and they just couldn’t handle American women but then I realized---

* Many foreign men of education & quality pass on American ladies too, hard pass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who wants to procreate with someone who’d think raising an innocent baby, not someone else’s baby, THEIR own child: was an unpaid gig? that’s disrespectful, and the very notion should be criticized.

Caring for your future is something you have to be acknowledged for. That’s the mentality of a teenager, not a woman, not a mate, that’s a liability. That’s signaling a conflict with evolutionary advantages.

(and it’s not even American women’s fault, their venomous culture grooms that into them. It’s making them incompatible with human connection. Giving a shit about anything or anyone, & it’s not given back *because how tf is a baby going to reciprocate caregiving? thats how stupid this is*, all of which is now a labor, or so women have been told to think. That is why American/Western women are undesirable, it has nothing to do with your education, and everything to do with the lack of maturity, respect, and that disgusting egotistical attitude.) You can’t just bring up reciprocity but not consider for a second what you haven’t given back the entire time. The fact that men have ALWAYS been emotional sponges & dump sites for Women’s trauma.

Especially as a woman in a first world country. Not second, FIRST world.

🛑 Side-bar:

“What women want isn’t complicated. They want shared effort. Mutual support. Emotional responsibility that doesn’t get passed off like a group project. When that doesn’t happen, they’re choosing solitude over stress. And they’re not apologizing for it.

Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity. The choice to stay single rarely comes from defeat. It comes from knowing exactly how much energy they have left to give. Until that imbalance shifts, more women will keep walking away. Being alone is easier than managing someone else’s emotional life. “

You don’t apologize because a lot of us think one’s will is above challenge, when do American women ever apologize or humble themselves to be part of the solution? Vs exacerbating the problem that exists to make it men’s project to solve.

Despite what we give (as stated as a caveat), we want simple things in return that we’re not giving back via what he’s doing at the same time, so it’s shared effort but on women’s terms, not what’s fair.

We want returns on our givings, but not considering what we give back by what he does. So what you want isn’t complicated, your attitude, & lack of self-awareness complicates what you say you want.

Because once upon a time men opening up was something you claimed you wanted, or you were told to want that, even the VICE article claims:

“Some men have started opening up more, which is good. But too often, that openness lands in the lap of the person they’re sleeping with instead of a friend or a therapist. Vulnerability without boundaries can feel more like a burden than a breakthrough.”

TL;DR you got what you wanted or what feminism/society/ whatever article told you what you should want- you got it, now it’s a burden.

Maybe stop listening to articles telling you what to think. This is why you should take outlets with a grain of salt, stop being told what you should want, stop listening to agents telling you you’re never the problem.

Beyond this topic, this is why you’re in this situation nationally, listening to these outlets.

Which aligns with opinions like this:

“Newsflash. Plenty of women DO NOT complain about men not opening up and being emotionally available. There is a vast lot of women like myself who want nothing more than for our men to SHUT THE HELL UP about their feelings and be adults. We want husbands to be our partners not children of larger growth that we have to raise.”

So stoicism or men opening up when they were ready / not crying into women’s bosoms every other hour wasn’t a problem? Hm. Funny how that works.

So, as usual, women were told what to want by progressive outlets or spoken for on their behalf by articles & outlets like vice (with good intentions, mind you), as to what women should want-- and usual, women, ever so independent of men but so obedient to their societal masters, questioned nothing and just ran with it.

Now you’re in this situation because of the exact same reason.

STOP LISTENING TO THESE OUTLETS WITHOUT YOUR OWN DISCRETION, STOP SACRIFICING YOUR AGENCY TO BE TOLD WHAT TO THINK ABOUT HALF THE COUNTRY. Because if men did that to you (& the Red Pill scene did plenty of this) you’d call it misogyny.

Listen to the facts, not the propaganda, make up your own damn minds.

And if it’s validating your experience? Don’t omit it, don’t ignore what it’s saying that’s true but be extra careful, because the universe isn’t your own singular simulation of life. Maybe you just have shite taste in men.

Bias is something even more dangerous, because vindicating women is how women get manipulated, it’s all about dropping your guard through flattery to then install fallacious suggestions that dramatized the truth into something fraudulent, then the whole thing gets muddied in-

*us vs them*, all over again and again and again.

That’s how Politics & Fear mongering works. It’s a science.

Studies are an insight into patterns & phenomena so one can have a view of reality, but these experts’ views of the facts are not reality itself, this is why you do your own research.

What these “experts” tell you isn’t infallible, nor above error. Even academia can miss or look over very simple, very basic nuances that can hinder whatever point they were trying to make, which damages the good of addressing what it is they’re criticizing.

So what what I’m saying here: the people in this study that started all this- didn’t say it before me.

Why? Because they lost the nuance because their view of the facts was their reality, not what the reality is in retrospect in mirror of the facts:

https://gender.stanford.edu/news/structural-burden-mens-declining-social-networks

So what happened is one is allowed to ignore nuance to make women’s immediate self-interest the only thing worth discussing here, a topic concerning the COUPLE isn’t about the COUPLE, just the woman’s best interest. That’s a modern relationship, her benefit, his servitude.

Which is why the main issue here is she’s serving his needs, and not the societal norm which is- HE’S supposed to be the slave to her will, when neither is okay, but it’s only a topic because she’s not on top. See how this works?

And that’s what is this really about, and that’s why Westerners will never make progress as long as you keep up this contrived, fake drama, Gender War mongering.

And we isolate ourselves so you can maintain a bubble of control. Where your only partner is self-worship and self-interest.

“Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity. “

You wouldn’t need to protect a capacity, if we managed it properly in the first place, women are only the victims of articles & outlets out to ruin the only chance at women’s happiness with men. It’s always, always, ALWAYS a fight with you Americans. It’s truly a social disease.

It’s always someone else’s fault, or there’s this coddling, smothering justifying framed in a victim narrative. It’s nauseating how women put up with this kid glove treatment, told to be Bosses & CEO’s but you never shut down these talking points.

All this justifying why women turned tail, when in reality, it’s simply failing a simple test of our relationships, women gave up and ran away, that’s what it is.

And for some? They genuinely function better alone, or some situations were really bad (abusive), but for most in this specific context, it’s just running away in lack of ability of seeing through what you chose to participate in. Giving a damn didn’t come with a paycheck, a key to the city, or something to feed thine ego.

Then the media is spinning this in a way that makes women the unsung heroes.

• Which GUARANTEES women never improve how or who they choose, because someone else is always the problem, every single time. Every single year, every single occasion it’s another article about men doing something wrong, women are always vindicated in the matter.

That’s unnatural, there’s no quantifiable way that women are never a factor in how things go wrong for women in the lives of women. Pure infantilism. Pure enabled delusion.

Almost as if that’s the new rigid norm now, women being coddled by the zeitgeist.

Which is fine, unhealthy but ok, your culture does that, but women’s agency to change the course of the situation they’re involved in, their stake in it is the sacrifice for them never taking accountability for their part in the matter.

It’s an unnecessary sacrifice, all we have to do is try them with the same energy we spare for men.

And if that’s a problem? If that’s misogyny. Maybe how you come at men (tone & delivery alike) is what needs to change too.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mankeeping-is-why-women-are-done-with-dating/
- Mankeeping Is Why Women Are Done With Dating

🛑

All this is- is the articles addressing women being burnt out because they ended up with a needy man-- not a man, *a NEEDY man specifically & the emotional cost of women in that situation is a real concern (that I’ve witnessed btw) but it gets dramatized beyond reason to broad-brush MEN, the enemy of women.*

• Americans tend to take relatively simple situations like this and make it into a national pearl clutch to further demoralize your males from trying or give your women yet one more thing to be bitter about when in reality, they’re the common theme of the problem, not men. Big shock.

• Not that women are the bad guy here, but the source of the pattern, very simple.
  
  
  

If men started saying women trusting them with their trauma/vents/dumps/shoulder cries or their monthly hormone spikes (which women can’t control) was a “burden”, or dealing with women was an unpaid labor, or unacknowledged trifle he shouldn’t have to put up with when what he wants he could just get from a sex doll-

“So what purpose does a woman serve? When a VR Waifu can woman better than a women during a time where women think everything is a labor?”

Imagine that as an article, that would make women feel horrible, & even if it didn’t for the minority that would just cry “incel”, it’s a disgusting and vile thing to imply, let alone say, or believe.

• I repeat: “Lesbian **women tend to perform more social/emotional labor than men regardless of relationship type**. “

• TL;DR The issue isn’t men, the common theme is women overextending. But when the narrative is making men the problem-- that nuance will always be smothered & suppressed, perhaps on purpose, but I’m going to hope that isn’t the case.
  
  
  All you can do is be mindful to be more available, but don’t stress over “equal labor”, because again, her lack of reciprocity isn’t a problem in the gaze of society. Strive for fairness & consideration but keep in mind, men & women have different natural proclivities. Just do your best.

Lastly, to reiterate:

All one can do is just advise us be more mindful of being available emotional support as much as we can.

The pedantic/childish element here is while you can be mindful to be fair to your partner, but there’s no realistic way to keep score of who’s supporting who at what volume, EQUALLY, at all times, again, it’s asinine.

You’re fetishizing equity & over-complicating your own formula, while ignoring your own lacking.

Because what she’s not doing at the same rate you do for her, that isn’t a national concern, very convenient criterion.👁️👄👁️

Because lesbians face the same labor challenges, I repeat, so it’s clear men doing more isn’t the sole solution as much as it is Women, in reality, simply moderating how much they give at a time in the first place.

Articles won’t state that simple fact, but they will propose:

“Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity.”

Women are the victims. This is why no one abroad wants western women, they’ve been bred to be undesirable. Not intimidated by education or this hybrid sense of independence (because conveniently dependent on Papa Government.) as much as it is women of western world are martially incompetent, and again, they’ve been groomed & molded mercilessly to be like this.

Look at we’re talking about, their society literally invents words with “Man” as the prefix to condition an association of resentment with half of their country, when the lack of reciprocation, women do at the exact same time. But these articles hold back women’s role in the matter & only focus on one party. Who does that?

Why settle for a perpetual victim, when you can just go to another country & find a woman to be happy with instead?

Because no one can control or should have to control how much she gives, than she herself.

Don’t stop giving, but moderate how much, that’s just common sense. Why couldn’t VICE say this? Because their agenda, like everyone else, every other month, every year, it’s not about a solution----

It’s about a new divide.

Men aren’t the problem, if they’re not matching what you’re doing, and you’d face the same issue with another woman, eventually---

Then Women need to gauge their emotional/social reserves better.

🛡️Caveat: If the person you’re with finds issue with that moderation, they feel entitled to your support flow, then have a conversation about it and set boundaries. That’s the time to test them & set boundaries, but don’t exhaust yourself then run away or get bitter because you allowed yourself to get drained. And then claim it’s you being educated that you’re insufferable & impatient because you expect a therapist to bail you out of giving a shit/ or too much of a damn about the person you’re sleeping with. When once upon a time men not telling women ANYTHING was also an issue.

Pick a lane. Stop playing with men’s emotions, Americans have this “men perform” syndrome, what women want on this particular week, men have to go Optimus Prime mode & just transform on command.

It’s disgusting.

• * Because if men wanted to complain in serious context that women don’t reciprocate on how much men do, perform, and spend for women-- my charge would be: *women aren’t the problem, stop doing so much then. No one can control how much you choose to give than you.*

Same goes for women here, putting the ball in men’s court just makes women a passive party, no accountability & takes agency from women, because they then sign of relief that yet again “He’s the problem, so he has to do for me me me me me me me”, as usual.

• No charge to improve, just victim narratives & vindication for opting out, because women are never the problem and not responsible for anything.

Same old crap that stagnates women’s ability to improve as options as is on the global market, let alone desirability in their own homeland, the same “not your fault” crap.

You don’t want to be a therapist, but him being an ATM, bodyguard, sponsor, therapist etc. all of that unpaid, unacknowledged, unsung labor stays right? Can’t even say he’s doing it with benefits, what benefits at this point?! What do men in American even get out it these days or what are they allowed to want?

He’s the man, unpaid is the default. But it’s a crisis when your labors are unpaid. We can not have this attitude & expect a future. Or maybe? The point is to destroy exactly that.

We can blame it on “norms” this & “systemic” that, that’s just deflection to alleviate choice and responsibility, to make it about a boogeyman, someone, anyone else but me.

• Socialization has a significant hand in your cultivation, why & how you think what you do, but it doesn’t dictate your directives, because there’s plenty of personalities that defy the norms. I’m one of them.

You are not a robot, you make your own damn decisions, own it. If you’re giving too much of yourself, moderate it, talk about it, boundaries, & if opting out is the logical outcome best for you? Do it. Being with someone is not meant for everyone.

Very painfully simple solution your outlets & authorities WILL NOT share because your agency is what needs to be repressed, so that you remain obedient to whatever they peddle to you next time on American’s favorite sitcom “Men are the problem”.

Don’t stop giving, just control the volume. DUH.

I do it everyday, I moderate my energy levels that I give to people, instead of opting out of being there for them as a whole, sometimes I don’t pick up certain phone calls, just to establish boundaries.

I just control the volume, I, me, my responsibility.

That’s part of being a grownass adult. Not a reckless amateur therapist with no filter of their own output, then surprised or angry or burntout when a lack of a filter or a backbone results in exhaustion.

When you use an office water dispenser to fill a cup of water, you fill up the cup until it’s enough. You don’t dump the entire tank of water into the cup until it’s empty. You MODERATE the output.🧠🧠🧠

Room for improvement is imperative, for both sides, men can be more mindful, but don’t let your country pressure you, or coddle you into complacency, bitterness & victimhood 24/7 and abuse you & your opportunities with any men on Earth just because you’re not the man in the situation. Take responsibility for what you choose to give in the first place, and don’t allow these agents to make you think human connection without a damn reward is a labor, don’t let them turn you into that monster.

And don’t let your country gaslight & abuse you yet again for the hundredth time- just because you’re not the woman in the situation, just be mindful of your contributions, do your research, and be considerate. Don’t be the tool, you don’t exist for women’s whims, don’t let these outlets beat you into submission, don’t be bitter against women, they’re being used.

Both sides are in the middle of something fierce and the resource is your defeat, isolation, and resentment.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ No one’s the villain, don’t allow your “experts” to sabotage you with good intentions.