The reason why women hate the manosphere so much is because of the unspoken threat it poses to them. All this talk about men being inspired to mistreat women is nothing but horseradish.The real reason why they're so against it is the possibility of men realizing that women aren't necessary. When a man thinks he can be happy without a woman, or worse, that he would be happier without a woman, he'll stop then and there. That means one less man who will buy her drinks, who'll come over and do chores, who'll carry emotional baggage for her, etc. Obviously, when one guy does that, they can eventually find someone else to mooch off, or they can say they didn't need his help to begin with. But a whole movement of men walking away would effectively be the end to their shameless freeloader lifestyle.That's why they hate the manosphere. Every other excuse that comes from them dances around that one point.
Oh the mistreat is quite tangible, I don't know why worthless men keep pretending they are doing so much from women and are treating it as a sort of strike.You don't do shit. Never have.
no one asked, stinking jeetcel
the manosphere is nothing more than feminism for men and theyre all annoying retarded people trying to make money off you
ngl i'm a woman and i really don't think that most women care about the "manosphere" because normal men don't care about it. it is almost entirely comprised of retarded white hicks and literal spics. it's pretty rare to meet someone who actually unironically consumes that kind of content irl
>>84288495It's not women. It's the elite that are scared. What if we blackpilled enough white men and they decided to work less, collect benefits where ever they can, and forgo things like military service? This is what the black pill leads to.
No one really cares about grifter movements for closeted homos and right wing losers.
>>84288495No they hate it because men with nothing to lose are finally pointing out obvious truths about women. Women have a really hard time getting out of the mentality of only doing what's best for them and their urges rather than general society so everything's been going down the drain.
>>84288583>No they hate it because men with nothing to lose are finally pointing out obvious truths about women. Women have a really hard time getting out of the mentality of only doing what's best for them and their urges rather than general society so everything's been going down the drain.Yeah, look up the major shareholders of any given corporation and it's all women. Selfish bitches.
>>84288591What point were you trying to make with that statement? I could come up with a thousand ways women are selfish.
>>84288650And I can come up with a thousand ways men are selfish. People are selfish. You are not that smart for figuring it out.
>>84288495I'd agree with you OP, except simpery is hardwired in most men. Some even enjoy slaving and catering to a foid with nothing in return. Some even enjoy the abuse. You will never get rid of simps. Simpery is coded at the genetic level.
Let's also not forget that in Western societies, the state has become daddy king simp. Your only hope of hurting women at all would be to fuck up male participation in the economy. But then kikes and women will just vote to import more browns, who are even bigger simps.
>>84288652What gender is expected to pay for first dates, utilities, child support? What gender usually initiates divorces? Why are women more likely to leave a man who's lost his job but not vice versa?How did the majority of female billionaires make their money? What gender has made more inventions purely for the use of the opposite gender?
>>84288685You never answered my question. What gender makes up the majority of corporate shareholders? Because they control pretty much the whole of society. I think it's crazy that you people will happily lick the boots of men who hate you and refuse to pay you a living wage and then turn around and get super duper assmad when a girl wants you to pay for McDonalds.
>>84288517>the manosphere is nothing more than feminism for menAnd that's a good thing. Feminism worked for women. We need our own feminism.
>>84288702They made or invested in the companies they get to have majority shares.Given the nonsense you just typed out in going to assume you don't even know what a shareholder is.
horseradish
>>84288733>They made or invested in the companies they get to have majority shares.Yes.>Given the nonsense you just typed out in going to assume you don't even know what a shareholder is.>Shareholder value is a business term, sometimes phrased as shareholder value maximization. The term expresses the idea that the primary goal for a business is to increase the wealth of its shareholders (owners) by paying dividends and/or causing the company's stock price to increase. It became a prominent idea during the 1980s and 1990s, along with the management principle value-based management or managing for value.See, everything you interact with is a business or is downstream of a business. Thus, your whole social world exists to maximize value for shareholders. If you have a problem with women, it is because shareholders have decided that it maximizes their holdings to have women be that way. Women have jobs, they consume products, and the need services. Thus, their entire lives are just as rooted in what benefits shareholders as yours. You are framing their failings as individual moral failings when in reality they like you are slaves to people they don't even know exist.
>>84288756NTA butShut up retard you are 15 lmao
>>84288542Here is the fear OP mentioned. Better keep the men in line and formation by calling them bad names. Back to the vag worship, chuds!
>>84288756You do realize that if you invest in the stock market/401k/pensions(like the majority of people) you are a shareholder?
>>84288763Go on, elaborate.
>>84288776>You do realize that if you invest in the stock market/401k/pensions(like the majority of people) you are a shareholder?Let's look at that:>Approximately 62% of U.S. adults own stock as of 2025, either through individual stocks, mutual funds, or self-directed retirement accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs. While ownership is at a high point compared to the past decade, stock ownership remains heavily correlated with income, with 84% of households earning or more owning stock, compared to only 24% of those earning under Fair enough. Let's check by proportion>The top 10% of households by income (and especially net worth) own the vast majority of U.S. stocks, holding approximately 87% to 93% of all stock market wealth. Within this group, the top 1% alone owns over 50% of all stocks, while the bottom 50% of households own only about 1%. So "most people" are "shareholders" in the same way a burger king crown makes you a "king."
>>84288756What the hell so shareholders have to do with women being selfish cunts?You're clearly a women from the way you talk why do you have guy in your name?
>>84288787A rich person can buy a billion dollar yacht while a poor person has to make due with a 40k Prius.Has it ever crossed your mind to translate that to investing?
>>84288495Anons, I'm not a smart or worldly guy but it's glaringly apparent to me how much better life is without women. It's pretty much only idiots and assorted oofy doofy clowns who associate with women.It makes women think they hate men because only pants shitting retard guys with poop streaks on their sheets are dumb enough to date. There are quality guys who will date, but there exceptionally rare so most women get belligerent tards.
>>84288787Also, because I know you're too lazy and/or stupid to look it up:>The top 1% of wealth holders in the U.S. is heavily dominated by men, with women representing only about 30% of the top percentile, a figure that drops even lower in the top 0.1%. Women's path to the top 1% is most often through marriage rather than individual income generation, with only about 1 in 22 households having a woman as the primary breadwinner in that bracket.
>>84288803So? Make your own company make it public and retain 50% like zuck did and you'll have a zillion bucks. There's lots of females in Forbes 30 under 30, women are just statistically less likely to go for high wage high risk careers so they don't and probably never will make up the majority of the upper echelons of wealth. Also >>84288799
>>84288799>>84288839I'm not asking for personal finance advice. I checked with >>>/biz/ and I've already invested my life savings into trumpcoin based on their advice.The point here is that women are cunts because they need money to survive, they need money because they're not paid enough, they're not paid enough so that major shareholders can have more money, most major shareholders are men.Blaming women in your own economic league for your problems is just crabs in a bucket fighting, oblivious to the hand that picks them out, cracks them open, and fries them up.
>>84288861Did you read or retain anything of my posts?
>>84288863Which posts are yours?
>>84288495>nothing but horseradish.What language is this turn of phrase from? I think it's not jeet, african, or any shit like that but you feel a little thirdiefied so I'm saying somewhere in eastern europe
>>84288871he probably reads those old timey books
>>84288517>feminism for menlmao not even close. we don't demand special treatment. modern w*men need feminism because they can't survive in the merit-based society they demanded. turns out girlbossing requires actual work!
