Why bad women and girls rarely, if ever make history

[Questioner]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

 

[Toro]

tl;dr

 

[bodecea]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Actually, they are EXACTLY the kind of women that make history.

 

[Vastator]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Holy fuck Blue Pill deity... You know nothing about women. Which is just as well... It lowers your breeding potential...

 

[bodecea]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Holy fuck Blue Pill deity... You know nothing about women. Which is just as well... It lowers your breeding potential...

Probably INCEL.

 

[Questioner]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Actually, they are EXACTLY the kind of women that make history.

No, you really don't see deadbeat women like this, lacking as much as a GED education, popping out 15 kids with 3 baby daddies, and perpetuating a system of poverty making history no.

You rather see women of self-discipline, of higher moral, ethical and intellectual values, of pleasures in life which don't amount to smoking weed in Section 8 housing, or satiating the feral impulses.

No Marie Curie, no Jean d'Arc, no Margaret Thatcher, no women of any intellectual power would lower herself to what the radical left touts as a way of life, enslaving the uneducated and barely literate by the virtue of the satiation of impulses, and simplistic pleasures not in any way conductive to becoming a Joan of Arc, a Marie Curie, an Emily Dickenson, a Chris Everett, or anyone else, no, not at all. Mhmm.

 

[Questioner]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Holy fuck Blue Pill deity... You know nothing about women. Which is just as well... It lowers your breeding potential...

You know nothing about women beyond what you've masturbated to, or what you've learned for your waifu.

You already said "blue pill" and validated your 'incel' creds for all the world to see, mhmm.

 

[Questioner]

I suppose it goes without saying, that a woman of a bad disposition or character, not remotely inclined to anything remotely intellectual, creative, altruistic, or otherwise self-actualizing will rarely, if ever, make history.

If, like the underclass, she can't even manage her most feral and primitive impulses, preferring instead to drop out of high school and make 5 babies with 5 different baby daddies, or commit her first crime and end up with a felony by the age of 16.

A woman, with the goodness, strength, intellect, character, and beauty, inward and outward, unlikely what the anti-intellectual, the voyeuristic, and superficial consumerists mistake for beauty - whether Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Chris Evert, or others of lasting value, and merit, obviously is naturally inclined to make history (asinine social media postings, not counting as "history" in the sense I'm using it).

Imagine if, having instead of applied the virtues of education, self-discipline, and a higher cause or greater good, women such as the aforementioned Marie Curie, Emily Dickenson, Waris Dirie, and so forth - had instead decided that life was meaningless, and spent all that time they did contributing to women's dignity, character and legacy, making multiple babies with multiple babies daddies, and pleasuring themselves in the most feral and anti-intellectual of ways, nor even prating basic habits of strong, virtuous women and men, such as basic time management skills.

Ultimately resulting in them wasting so much more time in the kitchen or in front of the television, due to never having anything resembling a healthy account for it to begin with, unlike ladies of a productive, and self-disciplined mindset - able to productively account for all their time spent in and out of the home, and as a result, being able to do more in a year what lesser women of the anti-intellectual and anti-social persuasion would never have the intellect and character to do, even in a lifetime/

Perhaps, much as our theories of evolution seem to favor health, intellect, and true beauty, over the worse and more devolved and primitive traits in men and women, women unable to cultivate the virtues, strengths, values, intellect, life affirmation, and creativity which I've mentioned would naturally seldom if ever make history, other than perhaps as being a trivial and bestial mistake for the better women and men of the kind to learn what "not" to be, or what "not" to do... mhmm

(Please, make your anti-feminist sentiments known here, so I can properly and tactfully address them with all the intellect, beauty, and grace of a saint or sage, when you're ready, little boys and girls...)

Holy fuck Blue Pill deity... You know nothing about women. Which is just as well... It lowers your breeding potential...

Probably INCEL.

I'm sure the guy who said "Blue Pill" is, yeah.

Do you really believe in those simplistic false dichtomies?

I wasn't aware that anyone other than the most socially-inept and potentially wifebeating creeps, freaks, and Neanderthals who ever believed any of the stupidity of what he erroneously called "blue pill" to begin with.

The fact that it honestly takes someone like Steven Pinker to explain to these primates what should have been conventional folk wisdom and common sense to much more discerning men and women is rather said, if not outright disturbing - it's like they've never even seen or encountered a woman in real life who wasn't a potential target for their repressed rage and desire for domestic abuse, molesting their children, nor just a childish piece of meat on a silver platter.

I've ventured a guess that women's intuition has always been enough for them to be on the lookout for these potential creeps and predators, in their sheepish clothing and attire, mhmm