“Too Many Cattle”: Anyone Who Wants to Poison a Society Will Have a Better Chance If They Poison Women

Today there is the expression “too many cattle” to refer to men committed to adapting to female standards. I believe that man trying to conform to such standards is the norm in the civilized West; in the Islamic world is that men can get a wife by negotiating with each other, making deals between son-in-law and father-in-law. Given that those who say “too many cattle” do not seem to want to buy wives in the traditional way, it is necessary to find out what they have in mind.

One possibility is that they have adhered to the lifestyle propagated by pop culture. : men should want to be full of money and have women as commodities, without marriage involved. We are already “informed” that children are bad for the planet, because they emit carbon, etc. We are also re-educated to think that female empowerment is showing the ass; that the sign of success for a man is not having good children, but accumulating hot girls and having a lot of money. With this one, those. Thus, marriage is a bad business, as the number of women is reduced to one, and given the high probability of divorce, there will still be losses in property and legal expenses. If there are children, the damage only increases, because of the pension. In the end, the hypersexualized culture is a profoundly anti-natalist culture, since it abolishes the stability necessary to raise and educate children. Feminist legislation only makes things worse by effectively transforming the conditions of mother and wife into paid services. This goes into the calculation.

Along these lines, a man could stop being “too much cattle” if, instead of buying a wife, he rented hot babes, period. It remains to be seen where so much money will come from… Not for nothing, this mentality seems to be valid among admirers of drug trafficking and anarcho-capitalists who think that bitcoin will save the world – two groups that believe in easy money.

A few pinches of optimism

Nevertheless, another plausible explanation, and even more comprehensive, is that our time is exceptional because of the difference in values ​​between the sexes. The values ​​that are fashionable among women—namely, those of feminism—are simply not shared by the diverse set of men, so striving to please them would make them mindless bovines. In fact, the man who keeps saying “Uh, sorry for being a man!!” to beg for coitus.

First of all, let us increase our optimism. Women talk less about politics and ideology than men. Whoever disagrees, listen to the conversation of old men with paunches in a bar and then listen to the one from the beauty salon. If there’s a male conversational circle, they’re probably talking about politics, work, football and sex. If there is a female conversation circle, it is almost certain that they are talking about their own lives or that of others. That’s why the female circle stops talking when a nosy man comes along: we don’t want to be caught in the act of gossip, or else not listening to our intimate affairs. On the other hand, male wheels allow female incursions; if a woman approaches and they interrupt the conversation, it is because they were in the sex-related stories.

This common-sense observation matches the findings of Simon Baron-Cohen regarding the differences between the sexes, namely, that women in general are interested in people and men are interested in things. That’s why psychology courses are filled with women, and engineering courses are filled with men. (Although in the last decade there has been a male stampede from higher education, but that’s another story. Anyway, I bet it’s impossible to find a university where the psychology course has a lower proportion of women than engineering.)

That said, few women bother to discuss politics and ideology. You see a bricklayer talking about Bossonaro at the bar outside of an election year, but you don’t see the manicurist doing the same. Thus, given that the commonplace is for women to be “empowered”, it is predictable that most women will pass for feminists, because buying political fights is not up to them. Men overestimate women’s adherence to feminism, as they overlook the fact that women care less about ideology than they do.

Some hints of pessimism

Current times also show the harmful effect of a typical trait of young women: greater susceptibility to the transmission of mental illnesses. The specter of gender ideology haunts everyone, but, according to the conclusions of scientist Lisa Littman collected by Abigail Shrier in Irreversible Damage (2019), rapid-onset gender dysphoria typically has female adolescents as victims, and is socially transmitted. According to Dr. Littman, the typical script reported by parents is: “A daughter with anxiety and socialization difficulties, but no manifestations of childhood gender identity issues, enters high school. There, she fits in with a group of friends in which many come out of the closet as ‘transgender’. The daughter makes a similar ad; Then your mental health gets worse. ” Dr. Littman then began to study anorexia outbreaks, which were also transmitted among girls already in the internet age – and there they joined in virtual cliques to jointly cultivate the disease.

The very effect of injectable testosterone is beneficial in the short term for anxiety. One of the reasons men are less anxious than women is biological, as testosterone has this anxiety-reducing effect. Thus, a slight reduction in anxiety can be achieved by girls at a great cost to their health in the long term.

Furthermore, there is already a consensus among social psychologists that the smartphone caused an especially large spike in anxiety and depression among girls. Apparently, they care a lot more about their own social acceptance than boys, so a bad photo on Instagram or similar has a life or death importance – and the photo is exposed there, subject to reactions, during 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Last, but not least, the girls they are being led to believe, by advertising, that to succeed in life is to earn a lot of money by showing your ass for men to admire. Of course, this increases the supply of butts on the market, and with the increase in supply comes the price drop. Moral of the story: the woman (this troubled girl who is growing up) will have to take a hit, because, in her imagination and in her references, she doesn’t have honest means of earning a living. In the end, the lifestyle of the misogynist who wants to buy hot babes is shaped by that woman’s behavior, as is the lifestyle of the man who swears to be a feminist just to get sex.

So this new woman created by progressivism is ready to rent her body and live like a lone wolf, certain that she will be abandoned if her body breaks down. (And get paranoia with botox and fillers, done even by pretty young women.) Since the meltdown is inevitable, it’s not surprising that life expectancy has been falling in the US, the homeland of progressivism. The men that these women shape also do not live well, since they will be other lone wolves afraid of abandonment and who live thinking about a counter-coup.

Generational change?

I belong to the last generation that is not “digital native”. For my part, I’ve always thought that an intellectual career and the exploration of appearance are mutually exclusive things, so I was surprised when empowered intellectuals began to appear on the cover of women’s magazines with produced makeup and photo shoots. I never saw my ass as a possible source of income; but if I were to conclude that my ass is my only chance of earning enough money to live on, it would be after I’d given up all intellectual pursuits. On the other hand, a younger friend, from another generation, is studying medicine at federal and has colleagues who are proud to have an Only Fans, that is, a page where she sells sexy photos. In other words: in the minds of a certain niche of this generation – a niche that I don’t know how to measure –, what really counts in a woman is her butt. In the clinic, this same friend has observed the explosion of AIDS among girls from upscale neighborhoods who prostitute themselves without the slightest need. At the top of society, morality has changed; at the base, you can see the change between the traffickers and their rotating periguetes.

I caught the time when it was possible to be defiant defending, for example, gay marriage. In a short period, things were reversed, and it is possible for someone to end up in jail for defending the opposite.

It can be said that women are guardians of prevailing morality. A lot of men get together to overthrow a regime and make a revolution; later, the women are in charge of maintaining the customs. When religious morality was in force – that is, until yesterday – it was common for the most rebellious spirits to detest the clique of bigots that took care of other people’s lives while affecting virtues. These days, cliques that perform the same function are made up of feminists. This is an indication of a change in the status quo – and, to return to the cold cow, the man who submits to it is too much cattle.

Before this change, women contributed to making men more social. They gave families emotional stability, served as judges in matters of taste. It can be said that women tend to be, by nature, a social glue lady.

Whoever wants to poison a society will have a better chance of success if he poisons women. And it doesn’t seem difficult, when girls are educated by smartphones: all empathy is geared towards mental illness; all sociability, against men; all the will of acceptance, to the antisocial molds of progressivism.

Back to top button