Some women do bizarre things, things so stupid it defies simple common sense. One of them is following men around like dogs and invading male spaces, then trying to change them to suit themselves. Why? Envy? Thinking men are having a party and they want in on it? And they don't understand when men flee because they take fun out of everything.
Women are 100% dependent on men, contrary to their prideful self-delusions. They can either marry men or the State. That's it.
When women are neglected, that is, ignored, say when they crash headfirst into the Wall, they get hostile and angry and blame everything on men. When men are abused - humiliated - they sometimes kill people.
If men didn't go to work tomorrow the world would collapse within an hour - imagine no power and water - and imagine how fast the food would run out with no one transporting it. Or growing it.
If women didn't go to work tomorrow not only would the world not collapse, in many ways it'd get better. Imagine women out of "education." In some ways it'd be just an annoyance - secretaries, for example. The only major problem would be nurses, but it would not be fatal for society, just some sick people.
"It is frequently observed by Manospherians and traditionalists alike that women have a tendency that borders on the pathological to invade previously male-only spaces, with little to no regard for the effect that has on the dynamic of the existing group; even if the original group’s purpose is entirely thwarted by the presence of women, and even if women have no interest in the thing that prompted the formation of the group in the first place, they nevertheless insist on being admitted to it, or on destroying it.
"Now, it is certainly the case, as is usual with feminist nonsense, that men, collectively speaking, deserve some of the blame for rolling over and letting them get away with it. I say that just to get it out of the way, because for the purposes of this post I am not interested in that fact. I am going to attempt to explain why women behave the way they do; the fact that men should have stopped them is beside the point and comments to that effect will be deleted.
"Why, then, is it so important to women to be included in everything? Why will they break off a long-held friendship because another woman forgot to invite them to a party? Why must they insist on joining men-only golf clubs and shutting down the old-fashioned gentlemen’s clubs? I imagine these questions baffle a lot of men. They certainly baffled me, until recently. I could see what women were doing and recognize the ill effects of their behavior pattern, but I didn’t understand the motivation.
"Now, however, I think I do. You see, social exclusion is woman’s primordial fear. More than anything else, a woman fears being cast out of the tribe.
"In the ancestral environment, women were entirely dependent creatures. (Honestly, I think they basically still are, but it’s not as obvious anymore; rising technology makes a lot of social dynamics hard to understand, as neoreaction has previously observed with regard to crime rates.) They depended on men for protection against hostile tribes, wild animals, adverse weather, and other physical dangers, as well as for the provision of basic material needs. A man, of course, benefited greatly by being part of a social group; but if you cast him out, he could probably survive at least long enough to find a new tribe to join. For a woman, on the other hand, to be sent out on her own would be a death sentence.
"As such, women are naturally adapted to the task of securing male protection and provision. They do this through the maintenance of social bonds, both to particular men (husbands, fathers, and sons, for the most part), and to the tribe as a whole. Accordingly, women developed a mode of discourse adapted to the realm of interpersonal relations in which they dwelt, and, moreover, they developed desires and fears that would push them toward the achievement of this evolutionary goal. It’s the fears that I’d like to focus on in this piece.
"It is only logical that if the maintenance of social bonds is the means by which a woman secures her living, then the breaking of those social bonds is what she would fear most. The idea that people close to her have a social space that she is utterly excluded from causes her great psychic distress. She is not concerned with the fact that her presence would interfere with the group’s ability to perform its purpose, nor with the fact that she has no interest in the activities the group engages in. All she is concerned with, fundamentally, is the fact that a deep biological fear has been triggered, viz. the fear of being cast out on her own.
"This same reality also explains women’s obsessive desire for attention, in all its manifestations: the attention whore, the attention-seeking false self-deprecation, the constant need for male validation, etc. If what women need most of all is the protection and provision of a man (usually their father early in life, their husband in mid-life, and a son by the end of their life), then for them to be neglected or forgotten by the men close to them is the small-scale equivalent of being cast out of the tribe, and just as terrifying, if not more so.
"This explains a key difference between men’s behavior and women’s behavior:
To a man, abuse is worse than neglect.
To a woman, neglect is worse than abuse.
"Of course, this doesn’t mean that men want to be neglected, or women want to be abused, exactly. But it does mean that if a woman has the choice between being abused and being ignored entirely, she will often choose to be abused. At least an abusive man is paying attention to her. In the ancestral environment, even a man who would beat his woman for petty reasons probably wouldn’t let her starve or be eaten by wild animals. Suboptimal? Sure. But was it better for her to strike out on her own? Not at all.
"Of course, a woman who has options is less likely to stay with an abuser. What kind of options did a woman have in the ancestral environment? Realistically, the only thing that was likely to be on the table for a woman severely mistreated by her husband was a return to her father’s custody.
"The absence of her father, therefore, would have two negative effects on a woman:
"1. She would grow up starved for male attention, protection, and validation, and would learn to seek it wherever she could find it. She would soon learn that the easiest way to get male attention is to give away sex. It should come as a shock to no one that this theory predicts women with absent fathers will be sluts. (I’d cite a source to prove this is the case, but come on.)
"2. She would be more likely to tolerate abuse, partially because of the attention starvation mentioned in (1) and partially because she wouldn’t have a father to fall back on if she left her husband.
"And again, I don't really think I need to have a whole lot of scientific study done to confirm that women with absent fathers tend to be: a) more promiscuous and b) more tolerant of abuse than others.
"This hypothesis explains a great deal of female behavior that might otherwise baffle men. As a final example, let’s take men’s and women’s differing responses to shame.
"It is well known that women respond to herd-shaming; they want the broader society to think well of them, and as such if the mass of women (or men) disapprove of their behavior they will change it. (They will also tend to change their behavior if one or a few men they really respect and consider to care for them disapprove, but men also have this response and therefore it’s not quite as interesting.) Men, on the other hand, are relatively indifferent to the opinions of people they don't respect. Mass cadshaming by women does not work. Mass slutshaming by women does work. It works because woman is a herd animal who fears being cast out of the tribe, and man is not.
"When you understand this crucial point, women’s behavior, and their misbehavior, starts making a whole lot more sense."