Update

woman.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ A woman in emergency situations even presents a **deadly danger**: not only do w
 
 Of course, [LRS](lrs.md) loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
 
-**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, some say they're for example better at [multitasking](multitasking.md), i.e. doing multiple things at once, though it gets questioned a lot, but it would possibly make some sense evolutionary speaking, men had to usually focus sharply on one thing while women had to keep an eye on kids, maintaining fire, cooking, cleaning, talking with other women and watching out for danger -- all at once. Women could also find their "strength" exactly in the fact that they're DIFFERENT from men, they seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to possess), however they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. A man may fall victim to his overly competitive nature or "pride", being less competitive will sometimes be an advantage -- a truly smart woman will know this and won't try to mimic men, she will try to be good at being woman. There have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
+**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, some claim they're for example better at [multitasking](multitasking.md), i.e. doing multiple things at once, though it gets questioned a lot, but it would possibly make some sense evolutionary speaking, men had to usually focus sharply on one thing while women had to keep an eye on kids, maintaining fire, cooking, cleaning, talking with other women and watching out for danger -- all at once. Women could also find their "strength" exactly in the fact that they're DIFFERENT from men, they seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to possess), however they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. A man may fall victim to his overly competitive nature or "pride", being less competitive will sometimes be an advantage -- a truly smart woman will know this and won't try to mimic men, she will try to be good at being woman. There have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Practically speaking no matter what discipline, a woman can never get as skilled as man at it, although on occasion a man can get as bad as a woman. Women can make good assistants to men, e.g. nurses to doctors. Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
 
 **Can women be allowed in [technology](tech.md)?** Well yes, sure, we don't forbid anyone from doing anything. Can a [dog](dog.md) become a writer? Maybe -- it'll be awesome when he does, but we shouldn't encourage dogs to become writers or see lack of dog writers as a problem. In any case **we need fewer women doing important intellectual tasks**, forcing women to do tasks vital for functioning of society has led to those tasks being done poorly and society is getting destroyed, it's not [fun](fun.md) anymore, the world is literally [collapsing](collapse.md) because women were forced to do important tasks for [political reasons](feminism.md), it is now time to prioritize saving society before [political correctness](political_correctness.md). Just admit women are dumb, stop forcing women everywhere and the numbers will get back to healthy levels. In general something like 1 woman for 1000 men doing intellectual task such as [programming](programming.md), writing or [science](science.md) is about the ratio we are probably looking for.
 
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ And we'll close with an extra pro tip, the **one ultimate, simple, fast and 100%
 
 ## Men Vs Women In Numbers
 
-Here is a comparison of men and women in numbers that are still possible to be found in already highly censored sources. Of course, the numbers aren't necessarily absolutely up to date, at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the future such comparisons may become much less objective due to [SJW](sjw.md) forces -- e.g. because of [trans](tranny.md) athletes in sports we may see diminishing differences between measurements of performance of men and "women" because what in the future will be called women will be just men pretending to be women.
+Here is a comparison of men and women in [numbers](number.md) that are still possible to be found in already highly censored sources. Of course, the numbers aren't necessarily absolutely [up to date](update_culture.md), at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the [future](future.md) such comparisons may become much less objective due to [SJW](sjw.md) forces -- e.g. because of [trans](tranny.md) athletes in sports we may see diminishing differences between measured performance of men and "women" as what in the future will be considered a "woman" may be just a man pretending to be one.
 
 Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screeching "MISLEADING STATISTICSSSSSSS NON PEER REVIEWED". Three things: firstly chill your balls, this isn't a scientific paper, just a fun comparison of some numbers. Secondly fuck you, we don't fancy peer censorship. Thirdly we try to be benevolent and not choose stats in a biased way (we don't even have to) but it is not easy to find better statistics, e.g. one might argue it could be better to compare averages or medians rather than bests -- indeed, but it's impossible to find average performance of all women in a population in a specific sport discipline, taking the best performer is simply easier and still gives some idea. So we simply include what we have. Thirdly any statistics is a simplification and can be seen as misleading by those who dislike it.
 
@@ -101,13 +101,13 @@ Don't!
 
 Any girl that has ever seen the [Internet](internet.md) is spoiled beyond grave, avoid these for any cost. If you seriously want to live with a woman, it's best to consider diving into the jungle and find some half ape indigenous girl not touched by capitalism yet, those may be unironically cool.
 
-If you really really want a woman, you have to accept one basic fact and behave in accordance with it: **women are incapable of romantic love**. This is a fact very hard to accept by young men, but it really is so -- if you don't believe it (and you 100% don't), you will discover it yourself. This is not to say that a woman feels nothing in a relationship, but as a man you just have to realize a woman does NOT feel the same romantic feelings you feel towards her EVEN IF she looks like she does -- she WILL mimic the feelings because YOU, the man, need this for the relationship, she will behave so that to you it seems like she is feeling great romantic love, and she probably is feeling something -- most likely even believing it's the real love -- but it is NOT the same thing you are feeling. The truth is woman is calculating (not always consciously), she doesn't love YOU but rather what you PROVIDE for her, i.e. usually [money](money.md), security, protection, genes for her offspring, possibly social status etc. Again, this is not to say a woman is a monster incapable of love -- she can for example feel a much stronger (absolutely [selfless](selflessness.md)) love than a man for her children, but NOT for the partner. It's all evolution: a man's role is to spread his seed as much as possible (that's why he may be cheating) and protect women (that's why he loves her so much), whereas a woman is supposed to take care of children (that's why she before anything looks for the best partner that will ensure the best for her children). Women learn to externally behave in ways that are compatible with you, i.e. she will reward you with affection for what you provide her, but please realize that INTERNALLY she works absolutely differently than you, men and women are different creatures. Even if a man cheats on his woman, he will often love her so much he would die for her, but the woman will never do the same, in fact she will leave you at the first opportunity that allows her to safely get a better partner, no matter how many roses and love letters you bring her. It is similar to cat and dog love: a cat will cuddle with you and behave cute, but it NEVER feels the same kind of love a [dog](dog.md) feels towards you: the cat behaves like it does because it gets something out of you; it will leave you if it finds a better place to live and it will never miss you. In emergency a dog will defend you to his death, a cat will run away and leave you to your fate. Once again this is not to say a cat is necessarily a bitch and an evil animal, you only have to take its personality for what it is and behave accordingly, you can never treat cat like you would treat a dog.
+If you really so desire the warmth a female body, you have to accept one basic fact and behave in accordance with it: **women are incapable of romantic love**. This comes as a staggering fact to many and a painful one to accept by young men, but it really is so -- if you don't believe it (and you 100% don't), you are about to discover it through unpleasant experience. This is not to say that a woman feels nothing in a relationship, but as a man you just have to realize a woman does NOT feel the same romantic feelings that's present in your heart EVEN IF she looks like she does -- she WILL mimic the feelings because YOU, the man, require this for the relationship, she will behave so that to you it seems like she is feeling great romantic love, and she probably is feeling something -- most likely even believing it's the real love -- but it is NOT the same thing you are feeling. The truth is woman is calculating (not always consciously), she doesn't love YOU but rather what you PROVIDE for her, i.e. usually [money](money.md), security, protection, genes for her offspring, possibly social status etc. Again, this is not to say a woman is a monster incapable of love -- she can for example feel a much stronger (absolutely [selfless](selflessness.md)) love than a man for her children, but NOT for the partner. It's all evolution: a man's role is to spread his seed as much as possible (that's why he may be cheating) and protect women (that's why he loves her so much), whereas a woman is supposed to take care of children (that's why she before anything looks for the best partner that will ensure the best for her children). Women learn to externally behave in ways that are compatible with you, i.e. she will reward you with affection for what you provide her, but please realize that INTERNALLY she works absolutely differently than you, men and women are different creatures. Even if a man cheats on his woman, he will often love her so much he would die for her, but the woman will never do the same, in fact she will leave you at the first opportunity that allows her to safely get a better partner, no matter how many roses and love letters you bring her. It is similar to cat and dog love: a cat will cuddle with you and behave cute, but it NEVER feels the same kind of love a [dog](dog.md) feels towards you: the cat behaves like it does because it gets something out of you; it will leave you if it finds a better place to live and it will never miss you. In emergency a dog will defend you to his death, a cat will run away and leave you to your fate. Once again this is not to say a cat is necessarily a bitch and an evil animal, you only have to take its personality for what it is and behave accordingly, you can never treat cat like you would treat a dog.
 
 Jerking off is the easiest solution to satisfying needs connected to fucking women. If you absolutely HAVE to get laid, save up for a prostitute, that's the easiest way and most importantly won't ruin your life. Or decide to become [gay](gay.md), that may make matters much easier. You may also potentially try to hit on some REAL ugly girl that's literally desperate for sex, but remember it has to be the ugliest, fattest landwhale that you've ever seen, it's not enough to just find a 3/10, that's still a league too high for you that will reject you unless you pay her. Also consider that if you don't pay for sex, there is a 50% chance you will randomly get sued for rape sometime during the following 30 year period. If you want a girlfriend, then rather don't. The sad truth is that to make a woman actually "love" you, as much as one is capable of doing so, you HAVE TO be an enormously evil ass that will beat her to near death, abuse her, rape her and regularly cheat on her -- that's how it is and that's what every man has to learn the hard way -- as we know, the older generation's experience cannot be communicated by words, the young generation always thinks it is somehow different and will never listen. Sadly this is simply how it is -- even if you think you have found the "special one", the one that's different, the intelligent introverted one that's nice and friendly to you, nope, she is still a woman, she won't love you unless you're a murderer dickass beating her daily (NOTE: we don't advocate any violence, our advice here is to simply avoid women). If you think getting close to her, being nice and listening to her will make her love you, you're going to hit a brick wall very hard -- this road only ever leads to a friendzone 100% of the times, you will end up carrying her purse while she's shopping without her letting you touch her ever. If you just want a nonsexual girl friend, then it's fine, but you will never make a girlfriend this way. This is not the girl's fault, she is programmed like that, blaming the girl here would be like blaming a child for overeating on candy or blaming a cat for torturing birds for fun; and remember, THE GIRL SUFFERS TOO, she is literally attracted only to those who will abuse her, it is her curse. If anyone's to blame for your suffering, it is you for being so extremely naive -- always remember you are playing with fire. You may still get a girl to stay with you or even marry you and have kids if you have something that will make her want to be with you despite not loving you, which may include being enormously rich, being so braindead to have million subscribers on YouTube, having an enormous 1 meter long dick or literally giving up all dignity and succumbing to being her lifelong slave dog doing literally everything she says when she says it, but that will still get you at most 4/10 and is probably not worth it. { From my experience this also goes for trans girls somehow, so tough luck. Maybe it's so even for gay men in the woman role. ~drummyfish } All in all rather avoid all of this and pay for a prostitute, buy some sex toys, watch porn and stay happy <3
 
 ## Notable Women In History
 
-Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of [modern](modern.md) tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was [Elizabeth Holmes](elizabeth_holmes.md) who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. [Grace Hopper](grace_hopper.md) (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages, though the contribution is pretty weak. [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) cited by the feminist propaganda as the "first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, at least partially on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such [cancer](cancer.md) as [COCs](coc.md) and are not even worth mentioning. In general if there is some famous woman in science, technology or a similar field, she is not famous for extraordinary achievements but rather for the fact that she is a woman in that field -- like the horse who could count was also not famous for being able to count but for being able to count while being a horse -- again, this just confirms women are much less capable than men and seeing a woman with abilities comparable to those of men is something special.
+Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of [modern](modern.md) tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was [Elizabeth Holmes](elizabeth_holmes.md) who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. [Grace Hopper](grace_hopper.md) (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages, though the contribution is pretty weak. [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) cited by the feminist propaganda as the "first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, at least partially on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such [cancer](cancer.md) as [COCs](coc.md) and are not even worth mentioning. In general if there is some famous woman in science, technology or a similar field, she is not famous for extraordinary achievements but rather for the fact that she is a woman in that field -- like the horse who could count was also not famous for being able to count but for being able to count while being a horse -- again, this just confirms women are much less capable than men and seeing a woman with abilities comparable to those of men is something special. Every such woman furthermore stands eclipsed by ten thousand men for whom her achievements would be only mediocre.
 
 In the related field of [free culture](free_culture.md) there is a notable woman, [Nina Paley](nina_paley.md), that has actually done some nice things for the promotion of free culture and also standing against the [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) fascism by publishing a series of comics with a character named Jenndra Identitty, a parody of fascist trannies. Some rare specimen of women openly oppose feminism -- **these are the truly based women**.