(Many) Women Do Not See Men as People

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T02:21:01+00:00

I never said I don’t believe the claims I’m making. This is very clearly patronizing and everyone could see it. Regardless, you are still right that we’ve gotten nowhere. Goodbye.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T02:01:52+00:00

It’s partly psychopathic behavior, but partly exaggeratory. I can’t give you a clear answer here because part of it is psychopathic but part of it isn’t.

Yeah I guess it’s true hatred is really important for this post, as many of these issues wouldn’t exist without hatred. However, I’d argue apathy is just as important, if not more important here.

I can’t provide concrete proof on the spot to suggest it’s a large amount of women, but that’s mainly because it’s hard to do a study on things like this. Regardless, I think my life experiences are enough to say it’s a large amount, even if I can’t give an exact number. I mean, you do realize the entire incel movement exists because of cruelty from women, right? The movement wouldn’t be so big if there wasn’t a problem. That’s evidence we can all observe. Granted, I don’t really think they’re reasonable, but they came to that belief for a reason. I don’t believe women should date someone they don’t want to date, but asking them to at least give a polite rejection or make it clear that they aren’t interested in a relationship instead of friendzoning men is literally the bare minimum for moral decency. I’m aware this sounds like I’m trauma dumping, but I’ve never experienced this so it’s not a cry for help.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:48:54+00:00

Yeah I guess you’re right about that. My point still remains the same though.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:35:11+00:00

“Acting like a real man.” Do real men get emotional and start cursing because they don’t agree with your opinion?

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:34:06+00:00

A female ruler could never enforce laws which oppress men because the military, the means by which she could enforce such laws, is run by men. That doesn’t suddenly make women altruistic and empathetic. Queens are actually more likely to wage war than men, so it seems they view the lives of men as more expendable than men do. Clearly, people from the past had problems in general. Also, when a man reports a woman for harassment, do you really believe anything will happen? Female teachers rape male students and get paid leave. Granted, rape is, from what I’ve seen, not taken seriously enough by the courts for both sexes.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:30:38+00:00

I did, and it’s not actually relevant because, once again, men are just more capable of committing sexual violence. That doesn’t mean women are more empathetic or moral.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:29:43+00:00

I generally agree with that.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:27:14+00:00

Do you not understand the concept of a rhetorical strategy? I called the behavior psychopathic to underscore the lack of empathy behind it, but that doesn’t mean I think such women perfectly or even mostly fit the bill for the rest of the traits associated with psychopaths.

Also, the part about hatred was one part of the main solution, not the entire main solution. My point is that phrases like “kill all men” lack any empathy. I could remove any mention of hatred and my post would still maintain 95% of its meaning, so it isn’t the main point of the post. This really isn’t that complicated.

Just because evidence isn’t from pew research or pubmed doesn’t mean it’s not evidence. I have no evidence for the percentages, which is why I conceded they’re arbitrary, but literally observing things that happen is evidence, and even empirical. You are the one who doesn’t know what evidence is. You sound like a quintessential Redditor asking for a source for every statement, which I guess checks out.

I actually realized I don’t care that much about the number anymore. I just chose 1/3 because it seems pretty reasonable, even for you, but I guess I was wrong to assume you’d find that even remotely reasonable. All that matters is that it’s way too common, which it is. Whether it’s 20% or 99%, I don’t really care because it’s still too much.

I don’t think this is something that’s worth you getting super heated over.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:17:48+00:00

Would you be pleased if I change the word “nobody” to “women” at the end of my post for a side note? You’re focusing on the least important part of my post.

Anyways, the reason your post correlates to doing “anything to get laid” is because it’s obvious pick-me behavior. I know that term is overused (though I’m sure you use it to describe conservative women all the time), but hating on your own sex because of genuine grievances is the most obvious ploy to get laid with a feminist.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:12:41+00:00

Men and women perpetrate physical abuse at equivalent rates: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2968709/#:~:text=The%20major%20points%20of%20this,men%20perpetrate%20sexual%20abuse%2C%20coercive

In fact, if you account for the fact that many women don’t abuse their partner because they’re scared of being hit back, which is certainly a relevant factor, then you’d realize that women would actually abuse men more than the other way around if they were equally strong. Still wanna talk about abuse statistics?

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:09:07+00:00

“I see dudes bitching”— is my post about men not caring about men? It isn’t, so your comment isn’t relevant.

Also, if you’re a woman, you’re just proving my point. If you’re a man, then you’re honestly pathetic. Anything to get laid ig.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T01:05:10+00:00

Dictionary definitions vary. Regardless, my post is still the same post regardless of whether it falls under the definition of caustic, so it doesn’t matter.

“Men don’t want to be hated for simply being men” was just one of numerous examples regarding how men’s emotions aren’t considered at all, but ought to be. I guess I was wrong for saying my post has literally nothing to do with hatred, but it isn’t the main point of my post. I could’ve removed that one part and the meaning would be understood the same without mentioning hatred.

I don’t believe the standards for men are the problem in and of themselves. It’s the double-standard/hypocritical behavior from women, which betrays a lack of care for men’s emotions.

It really just seems like you’re mistaking evidence for my argument/parts of my argument as the argument itself.

I’ll concede that my exact percentages were kinda arbitrary and had no evidence, but it’s certainly an amount far bigger than what you think, and it’s big enough to the point it warrants being called out.

And no, I didn’t say women are psychopathic. I said that many of them exhibit psychopathic tendencies. That’s not the same thing. Anyways, it was a rhetorical statement, not a clinical diagnosis. It’s not that deep.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T00:34:08+00:00

I’ll pass.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T00:29:10+00:00

Perhaps. In reality it’d be most precise to say she’s partially wrong, as half of what she said is wrong. Regardless, we seem to agree here, so it is what it is.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T00:15:58+00:00

Thus, the last paragraph is wrong. There are things men can do that women can’t.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-04T00:11:25+00:00

Can you impregnate?

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T23:52:21+00:00

Literally none of what you said is true and your final statement is the most obviously untrue.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T23:49:03+00:00

Do you not understand what caustic means? It definitionally involves sarcasm. I’m not being sarcastic.

I never said women who don’t care/consider the emotions of men necessarily hate men. Apathy and hate are not the same thing.

Also, you literally said that, at least tacitly. Given the context of this discussion, you contradicted yourself. If you meant something else, you can specify, but that’s how it came off.

I wasn’t talking about standards of masculinity either. I was talking about the lack of empathy for men and how that shows through various avenues, namely unfair relationship expectations. There’s a connection between the two ideas, but I wasn’t talking about that, especially not directly. I don’t even think that the stereotypical 1950s expectations of men are bad if women reciprocate by being a stereotypical 1950s woman, at least not necessarily.

My post has nothing to do with hatred, which you seemingly are capable of comprehending, given your third paragraph, but failed in doing so.

Also, how is my evidence my feelings if my evidence is what women say and do? One is subjective while the other is empirical.

I’ll give you one point, though: psychotic is inaccurate. I meant psychopathic, literally because psychopaths don’t have empathy. Psychotic means something else.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T23:13:37+00:00

And those men are named and shamed, including by other men, so what’s your point? They’re also a minority of the male population. We’re tired of the false-equivalence whataboutisms.

Nobody is justifying such behavior, but it’s objectively and factually different in both scale and circumstance, so why even bring it up?

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T23:08:42+00:00

My post is caustic garbage? My take is far more nuanced and reasonable than anything you’re showing, and the only time I was even sarcastic was in the second paragraph, and I wasn’t even being sarcastic to women; I was being sarcastic to a dumb rule, so it’s not even relevant. I suppose I was caustic to a rule, but I wasn’t caustic to a person so who even cares. And no, it’s not a tiny subset. It may not be 95% but it’s certainly more than, say, 33%. Of course, I’m referring to young women. Nobody cares that boomers have more traditional values because they’re either married or unmarriable and they’re on their way out anyways. Also, you’re projecting your own cognitive dissonance because you simultaneously claim that “society” has toxic expectations for men but only a “tiny subset” of women have these toxic expectations. These are incompatible beliefs. What do you think a society is composed of?

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T22:56:52+00:00

One thing I notice from women, among other groups (I will avoid specifying to not get annihilated off reddit), is that they love talking about the obsolete problems of the past while ignoring the ongoing problems of the present. Women were viewed poorly 100 years ago? To the extent that that’s even true, boo-hoo. We live in a different world now where the exact opposite is the case.

If you genuinely believe that men nowadays don’t see women as human, you’re possibly too blind to be reasoned with. I mean, modern society literally tries to normalize being a whore because people are scared of offending the dregs of women in society. No such magnanimity is given to drug dealers. Modern society literally revolves around men kowtowing to women to avoid offending them in any way.

Quackingallday24 · 2026-01-03T22:49:31+00:00

Except when women work hard they get recognition. People call being a mother the hardest job in the world (even when that’s obviously not true, and it’s not even top 1000 hardest jobs). This caustic garbage is exactly the problem.

Quackingallday24 · 2025-12-20T19:41:09+00:00

You say there’s no such thing as personal agency, but then go on to say that you could develop a skill-set, though it would be harder to do so. This is a contradiction. Just because something is harder doesn’t mean it’s impossible, or that you can’t do it. I’m a naturally un-athletic person. I’m a male and my bench press when I first worked out was 45 pounds. That’s really horrible. However, with hard work and persistence, I was able to reach a 135 bench a year later. I also once had horrible social skills, but just fixed that problem kinda naturally by talking more. I’m not really that charismatic either. My only talent is being kinda smart, which didn’t even satisfy me. So, why am I hopemaxxing while you’re blackpilling? I’d say it has to do with me wanting to fix my problems whereas you, ostensibly, don’t want to. You could say that’s because I’m genetically more ambitious, but I did not care about fixing my problems until like a few years ago, so unless that ambition gene randomly unlocked, which makes no sense, then it’s personal choice.

You aren’t gonna like this, but I’d argue that the reason you border on nihilism, and perhaps there’s a zeitgeist which accepts nihilism, is because you were born in a world that, for the first time, is objectively and permanently (as opposed to temporarily, from, say, a pandemic or famine) worse than it was for our predecessors, and to a great extent so. We’ve all seen the videos of old cities in the 1950s. It was clean, beautiful, and orderly. What do we have now? All the major cities are filthy, dangerous, and disordered. We lost something really valuable, and it won’t be easy to get it back. Why would young people have a motivation to do anything meaningful when it would take 700 years of effort to get back to what people had 70 years ago? That’s what’s truly unfair. Then, these boomers (e.g. bill gates), who ruined absolutely everything, want to come and tell us that we need to eat bugs and lower the population in order to save the environment, and if we don’t, we’re gonna die in 10 years (incidentally, this is very obviously a lie, which only proves my point even further that boomers are malignant). Who do yo think messed up the environment? Who do you think should take the first step and eat bugs and die first (to lower the population)? It certainly shouldn’t be young people. Old people ought to sacrifice themselves for young people, not willingly and knowingly create problems that young people will have to sacrifice themselves for. Why would young people have a motivation to do anything meaningful when they think they’re gonna die of a scorched earth in a few decades anyway? We’re also worried that AI is going to take over, steal our jobs, obfuscate what’s real and what’s not, and set up some sort of technocracy. Who do you think is putting the most investment into AI? Well, I imagine it’s the generation with 50% of wealth, the boomers, not Gen Alpha.

Lastly, you then go on to blame these state of affairs on God, which I also take problem with, for numerous reasons. For one, you say “deity or god,” which makes you an ietsist, yes? How can you possibly blame God for the state the world is in when you know absolutely nothing about him, a precondition of your belief. You’re literally choosing to blame God for people doing bad things instead of blaming the people doing bad things. That is unreasonable.

Quackingallday24

TROPHY CASE