WHY I DON’T TAKE WOMEN SERIOUSLY

 

WHY I DON’T TAKE WOMEN SERIOUSLY

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

 

This flyer explains why I don’t take women seriously, seeing them largely as walking cunts, as baby factories and child raisers, which is what they evolved to do, and what experience shows they are happiest at doing, but since any woman can do such things these tasks are not status worthy in the eyes of men.

The older I get, the less seriously I take women. Now that I’m in my 70s, and my libido has pretty well evaporated, I don’t need women for sex anymore, so on balance, I really don’t need women for anything anymore, so will probably go full MGTOW, i.e. MGTOW monk, for the rest of my life, as did my father, who has been MGTOW monk for 3 decades, ever since his wife died young at age 68.

I will split this flyer into parts, one for each kind of woman, and will present my attitudes towards each kind of woman in that part. I list the kinds of women first and then talk about my attitudes towards each.

I will divide women into 6 categories, i.e. a) women as a whole, i.e. talking about traits that all women have, b) fluffies, c) fluffie feminists, d) fluffie FIPs, e) EMO FIPs, and finally f) sage FIPs.

a) Universal Traits of Women.

My main overall attitude towards women is one of lack of respect. I don’t respect women in the vast majority of cases. To be honest, that is also true of my attitudes towards men as well. I’m merely expressing a commonly held attitude of sages towards the bulk of humanity.

I’m a sage, i.e. an intellectual (which is 5 syllables, as against 1 syllable for sage). I’ve grown up in a world that is largely anti-intellectual (i.e. 7 syllables, as against sageist (2 syllables)) so this flyer is partly about my attitudes towards sageists, i.e. anti-intellectuals. Using the term sage allows me to replace the term anti-intellectualism (a whopping 9 syllables) with sageism (of 3 syllables.)

I’m a retired PhDed full research professor. I’m brighter than the vast bulk of humanity. As a prof, I’m hungry to learn. I have always been like that, since I hit puberty, and my brain wired up in the adult pattern when I was 17. I’ve always been hungry to learn and spend my waking day (actually night) constantly learning, so not surprisingly, over a whole lifetime, I have learned a TON.

When I compare what I know to most people, there is such a huge knowledge and IQ gap between sages like me and the vast bulk of humanity, that the gap is unbridgeable. Sages and peakers (people of average IQ, whose scores place them in the peak of the IQ bell curve, i.e. average Joes, people of mediocre abilities) don’t mix. They are like oil and water.

To protect themselves from boredom and having their time wasted, sages avoid peakers like the plague. Sages have nothing to do with peakers, because to sages, peakers are ignorant ignorable idiots, i.e. triple “i”s. To sages, peakers don’t think. They know almost nothing. Their ignorance is suffocating to sages, so to stay sane and relatively unstressed, sages remain aloof from peakers as a form of boredom protection.

Peakers see sages as stuck up pricks. Sages see peakers as ignorables, as inferior beings, unworthy of their attention, a waste of time, having rather childlike minds.

The type of people I really admire, are rare, maybe one in a thousand or less. The kind of person I admire and really respect are sages who are both intellectually brilliant AND creative. This combination is much rarer than either separately, since the two traits tend not to correlate much, so you can have dull brainiacs, and creative peakers.

My best friends over the decades have been such creative brainiacs, often a decade older than me, and are now dead. Fortunately my current best and only friend is 20 years younger than me, so probably I will not outlive him, but since I think I’ve inherited my father’s longevity genes, and my father is currently 98 and in good health, he will probably become a centenarian, and I hope and expect to too, so I may outlive my best friend.

I’ve spend a bit of time talking about sages and peakers because this distinction is relevant towards my general attitudes towards women, namely that there are far, far fewer creative sages who are female, than male. It follows from this that I don’t take the huge majority of women seriously, because so few of them are respect worthy in my eyes, according to my criteria for respect worthiness.

Women have 10% smaller brains, so have 10 billion fewer neurons in their brains than men, so not surprisingly, they can’t do things that men can do. Women don’t invent anything, create anything, build anything.

Women did not evolve to understand and manipulate the world. They evolved to manipulate men. Women evolved to become prostitutes to men, in order to be more effective parasites off men, being better able to bribe men to give women and their babies scarce male hunted meat, so that women and their babies would be more likely to survive and not starve to death.

Women lack curiosity about the world. Women have extraordinarily narrow horizons, so become more home bodies than explorers, the way men are. To a strongly curious minded male scientist, this lack of female curiosity about the world, is a major disadvantage on the part of women, and a source of much frustration and contempt on my part.

My idea of fun, as a sage, is to study pure mathematics, at PhD and research level, as well as math physics. This is such a minority interest amongst men, that amongst women, it is almost nonexistent, so I can’t share my intellectual passions with females. Since I’m hetero, along with 99% of other males, I would like to be able to share my intellectual passions with the woman I am penising, but I have never had that experience. This lack of admirable women in my life has been a source of bitter resentment on my part. It has made me a real misogynist in terms of my attitudes towards women’s mental capacities.

When feminazis complain about men’s condescending attitudes towards women, they are right. I am very condescending towards women when it comes to pure math and math physics. Women are inferior to men in such fields. I cannot share my intellectual passions for these topics with women, because women are such fuckwits in such fields. Women are not interested in such topics and are not very good at them, so tend to ignore them, and contribute almost nothing towards their development.

Women have won a pathetic 1% of science Nobel prizes.

Women are dumber than men by an average of 4 IQ points. Women have a 10% lower IQ variance than men, so that the morons and the genii are males, hence the 99% of science Nobels being won by men.

Women have much lower testosterone levels in their bodies than men, so are much less aggressive, less ambitious, less driven, less persistent, so it is not surprising that men vastly outperform women at difficult tasks, so men dominate the lists of famous men, in the Who’s Who books. Everyone has heard the term “great man” but the term “great woman” sounds almost oxymoronic.

So, to summarize a bit, my main source of misogyny, is women’s lack of being sages, lacking curiosity about the world. I see women as child minds, whom I can’t take seriously, because they are so unrespect worthy in my view. I can’t take them seriously, because they contribute so little to the world, being largely parasites off men, always taking, and rarely giving, because they are simply genetically incapable of giving. They don’t have the DNA to do that, and that is not going to change, a fact that the feminazis will just have to accept, but they don’t, which just increases my level of contempt for them.

b)  Fluffies

As a masculist, I have a hatred of fluffies, who are by definition, traditional women who expect to be able to parasite off the money of a man, so that she can stay at home, sitting on her fat parasitic arse, raising her kids, and having the whole show paid for by her manslave husband, whom she mercilessly exploits.

Men, who invent everything, gave women the contraceptive pill, household gadgets, and higher education, so women now typically have 0, 1 or 2 kids, so have a career window of some 4 decades.

Masculists point the finger at fluffies and tell them – “Now that women can work, they must work. Anything else is exploitation of men, parasiting off men’s labor.”

The masculists principal political goal is to wipe out manslavery, by wiping out the fluffies, by totally ignoring them, not even pumping and dumping in, forcing them to FIP up, i.e. become FIPs (financially independent persons) by bothering to get a career competent education, or be left rotting on the shelf, to extinction, manless, loveless, sexless, babyless, poor and increasingly spat at, as society becomes increasingly sympathetic towards masculist ideas.

Fluffies are amoral child minds in my view, for whom I have an utter contempt. I want to see such women wiped out, by being totally ignored, and shunned by a masculist oriented society, that pushes morally very hard for the creation of a FIP Society, i.e. one in which nearly all adults are FIPs, socialized by parents, and educated by teachers to be FIPs, so that they do not parasite off the labor of men.

Masculists label fluffies as “immoral, parasitic, manslaving vermin” to be wiped out. A woman who sits on her fat arse, who does not bother to get a career competent education, and then expects to be able to parasite off the money of a man, is vile in my view. I have a hatred for such women. They are “Simon Legrees” to me, (i.e. the brutal owner of negro slaves in Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” that played a role in the creation of the US civil war.

The masculists aim to put such heavy moral pressure on fluffies to FIP up, that fluffies will die out, utterly shunned and spat at by society, i.e. spat at by both men and women, who both expect women to FIP up, to behave as moral, responsible adults, who pay their own way and do not expect to be able to parasite off the labor of another person, thus enslaving them.

c) Fluffie Feminists

I have an even greater hatred for fluffie feminists, because it is bad enough that they are fluffies, and hence manslavers, but they are also hypocrites. Fluffie feminists have had their feminist consciousness raised, but not their masculist consciousness raised. They know nothing about masculism, so by default, they have traditional expectations towards men, i.e. seeing them as cash machines, for women to sexploit, instead of bothering to FIP up and take financial responsibility for themselves.

Fluffie feminists are hypocrites because they want to have equal rights with men on the one hand, but reject having equal obligations with men, in sharing out the burden of earning the living, by bothering to get a career competent education at high school and college. Fluffie feminists want to have their cake and to eat it too, by getting the best of both worlds, i.e. getting equal rights in the parliaments, AND getting paid for by men as fluffies in the divorce courts.

As a masculist, I have an utter contempt for fluffie feminist hypocrisy and sneer at fluffie feminists. I also hate them for the fact that they are now indirectly wiping out whole populations, due to their taking over the divorce courts and making them so toxic for males, that now two thirds of young men under 35 in many countries, refuse to marry, refuse to have kids, and spend their money on themselves.

If you do the math, in a mere century, such populations will have wiped themselves out, because the current generation is only reproducing a third of its number.

Therefore these fluffie feminists, these feminazis, have to be stopped. If the population drops enough, desperate measures will need to be taken, such as men going into the streets and shooting these feminazi vermin, for being the indirect genociders that they are. Alternative to simply killing them, as in a sex war, would be to bitch slap them to oblivion, or to take away their right to vote, which would make the menfairing of the gender laws much easier, without the female bloc vote in favor of the gynocentric divorce laws.

I have a real contempt for the feminazi tendency to blame men for women’s situation, instead of taking a lot of the blame on themselves. Women are their own worst enemy.

Men look down on women because women’s performance track record is so greatly inferior to men’s, so naturally men dont take women very seriously, seeing them more as children, than as responsible adults, as FIPs.

For example, feminists keep harping on the so called wage gap, i.e. that in the US for example, women earn 80c for men’s dollar. Feminazis blame men for this situation, claiming that men are prejudiced against women and do not promote them at work to higher positions, as readily as they do men.

This is cowardly hypocrisy on the feminazis part I feel, because the reasons why women earn less is due mostly to women, to women’s choices, and to women’s genetic inferiorities. Women prefer a more balanced work-life mix than men, so work less hours, so earn less. Women leave the work force for some years to have kids, so have less work experience than men.

Women are genetically inferior to men in many respects so are less capable on the job than men, e.g. women are dumber than men on average by 4 IQ points, have 10% lower IQ variance than men, and much lower testosterone levels than men, so are less driven, less ambitious, and hence perform less well than men. Women tend to give up more easily, so men are paid more because they deliver more.

The feminazis are unable to look at their own inadequacies, always taking a collective ego defense position on the part of women, instead of facing up to the tougher issue of accepting female genetic inferiority.

This hypocritical dishonesty of the feminazis is similar to the way Jews also always play the victim role, instead of asking the much tougher question of “What role are Jews themselves playing in generating antisemitism and pogroms, wherever they go?”

I see feminazis as cowardly hypocrites when it comes to not facing up to their own inferiorities and not looking at the scientific evidence that shows clearly that women cannot compete with men at the top end of the scale.

Fluffie feminist hypocrites are the most hated form of women, and are the first to be rejected. No man wants a relationship with an immoral parasitic manslaving feminazi bitch. Such women are ignored to death by men, forced to rot on the shelf. They are repulsive to men, because they are so unpleasant to be with, so men choose not to be with them. Men ignore such women totally, not even pumping and dumping them.

d) Fluffie FIPs

A fluffie FIP is a FIP who still has fluffie attitudes towards men, i.e. still seeing them as cash machines, even though they are FIPs in terms of their education and career. They pull their weight financially, but still see men as existing on this earth to pay for women to have babies.

Fluffie FIPs are half way women. They are no longer parasites off men, in the sense that they have bothered to FIP up, and have a well-paying job, so that they are financially independent, and don’t need to parasite off the money of a man, the way a fluffie does, but they still oppress men with their traditional attitude that men should pay women to have babies.

My sister is a fluffie FIP. She is definitely FIP in terms of her career, with her own medical clinic and employing some 3 dozen other doctors. She is wealthy and more financially successful than her two brothers, but she, like any fluffie FIP, still has traditional expectations towards men, because she knows nothing about masculism.

She still thinks that a man should pay child support after a divorce if he loses custody of his kids. She does not think that a woman should be a FIP and if she gets full custody of the kids, then she should pay for them. Why should the man pay for them when he gets no benefit from them, not having custody of them?

Fluffie FIPs need to be converted into EMO FIPS, which is the next topic.

e) EMO FIPs

An EMO FIP is a FIP who feels that women have an equal moral obligation with men to be FIPs, i.e. she feels that she is morally obliged to be a FIP, so as not to parasite off the money of a man. An EMO FIP would feel ashamed to be a fluffie, to parasite off the money and labor of a man, off the efforts of another human being.

EMO FIPs are the kind of women that masculists are pushing for, to be socially engineered, by putting enormous moral pressure on women to FIP up and become EMO FIPs. Women are like sheep, being much more group pressurable than men who are more individualist.

So by socially engineering women, it should be possible for masculists to morally pressure women to become EMO FIPs or rot on the shelf to extinction as hated fluffies.

f) Sage FIPs

Sage FIPs are my favorite kind of women, but they are rare, maybe one in ten thousand or less. Women have contributed perhaps 1% to world culture. Their contribution is negligible. Look at the pathetic 1% of science Nobel prizes that women have won.

Women evolved to be hypergamous, i.e. always on the lookout to trade up to a superior male, whose DNA would give her superior kids compared to herself. This makes good Darwinian sense, but it is tough for men. If I came across a sage FIP woman, i.e. my equal, she would probably not be interested in me, because she would be looking for a man even more qualified and capable than I am, to satisfy her hypergamous instincts, that she evolved to have.

Sage FIPs are FIPs, so pull their financial weight. They are also sages, so are respect worthy in my eyes, because they satisfy my criteria for worthiness, i.e. they are both intellectually brilliant and creative, but such women are far rarer than equivalent men.

There are probably 100 sage men to 1 sage woman, so obviously there are not enough such women to go round with all these sage men. Most of these men will not find a sage FIP woman, so will live out their lives as frustrated hetero MGTOWs, unable to find a woman to admire, and live a pleasant life with, who would not parasite off them, and who would be nice to them, the way their mothers were to them when they were small.

Unfortunately, such pipe dreams are just that. The odds are heavily against such scenarios happening in the real world, so the MGTOW sages will continue to be MGTOWs, resenting the genetic inferiorities of women, and not being able to share their minds with females, the main source of their frustrations and the source of their misogyny.

Wise women, with good adult brains, should be able to understand the source of this misogyny and sympathize with male sages, but most women are too stupid to do this, so become feminazis, blaming men for all women’s problems, an attitude that male sages find so stupid that it only increases their level of contempt for feminazis.

At the most extreme male performance scale, e.g. the Newtons and Teslers of the world, there are simply no women at such lofty levels, so such guys are doomed to live out a life in which every woman they meet is a fool in their eyes.

No wonder Newton and Tesler chose to be womanless. They preferred their own company rather than have to share their lives with a female whose mind would have been distinctly inferior to theirs, given women’s lower average IQ and lower IQ variance. Such is the nature of the world, even though its consequences can be bitter for such men.

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

(YouTube channels) “de Garis Masculist MGTOW Flyers” “de Garis Essays”

(Patreon)  patreon.com/profhugodegaris

(Minds) minds.com/profhugodegaris

(BitChute) bitchute.com/channel/profhugodegaris