In this article we address why men are not intimidated by ‘Strong Independent Women’ and what this really means.
Index
- Men Are Not ‘Intimidated’ By ‘Strong Independent Women’
- Women are Not ‘Strong’
- Feminists are like Keyboard Warriors
- Women are Not ‘Independent’
- Babies Change Everything
- YouTube
Men Are Not ‘Intimidated’ By ‘Strong Independent Women‘
One of the common sayings we hear from obnoxious older feminists is this womanese phrase:
“Men Are Intimidated By a Strong Independent Woman”
stereotypical feminist, usually trying to explain why she’s still single in her 30s
This is usually cope from post-wall women because men don’t want older lower-value masculine women.
Women are also not strong, nor independent.
Women are Not ‘Strong’
if men were to revoke legal chivalry, women would quickly remember that men are physically out of their league and are not ‘intimidated’ by them.
Only under feminist law handcuffing physical recourse to provocation can women spout this insulting bullshit.
Feminists forget that any average man could smash any woman’s face in.
She is not strong.
Even the greatest ever undefeated world boxing champion Lucia Rijker was clean KO’d within 2 rounds by a small unknown unranked man of mere same size. It was not even a contest.
Men are not intimidated by women.
It’s the wrong word.
Any woman who got physically checked for her bad behavior like a man would, or who understood that such physical escalation is permissable, would soon start being more respectful to men and stop saying dumb feminist shit like this.
This is why the most polite people you’ll ever talk to as a man are often fellow martial artist men. Because they know the possibility of physical escalation exists and understand the physical consequences of running their mouth and potentially provoking a fight.
Feminists are like Keyboard Warriors
Feminists are like keyboard warriors – everybody hates them and doesn’t respect them because of their unbacked attitude:
Women are Not ‘Independent’
Women not that independent either.
They aim for financial independence because they don’t trust the longevity of their relationships with men. This is a by-product of modern feminist promiscuity lowering their value.
The average woman is a $150,000 net loss to the state over her lifetime at the expense of higher taxation on men.
And it’s often much worse in dating and relationship subsidies, especially divorce.
Women only think they’re independent because men subsidize them throughout their lives via the state and high taxation.
Who built the house/apartment she lives in, or the car she drives, or the utilities she uses? Men.
Even in their bullshit corporate office jobs that make them appear ‘independent’, women are subsidized by male productivity.
Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax
Babies Change Everything
Even a ‘strong independent woman’, once she has a baby, often decides she doesn’t want to go back to her career straight away. Or she only wants to work reduced hours.
Suddenly she needs a man to pay for all her food, bills, car lease, insurance and other expenses on top of those for the baby.
Never mind that he may end up taking extra hours at work or a second job to cover the extra financial burden she places on him.
Stupid feminists often respond that they just won’t have children in that case. That is even worse.
Each woman is a $150,000 net loss to the state. Without children, women are not worthwhile for society to keep subsidizing or protecting.
Men are the work horses of civilization, and the only ones who are really economically independent.
Even then, men are not truly independent if they want to have children, they still need women.
Men’s burden of performance is to be productive beyond his own needs so that he can provide for his family, in order for his genes to survive to the next generation.
So let’s stop with this stupid feminist ‘independent‘ nonsense.
Neither gender is independent of the other when succeeding at life and reproducing.
Don’t make me send you to the Evolutionary Biology book list.
