Women are naturally neurotic and emotional, and so break their word unless when it comes time to do what they said they'd do, they feel the same way in that moment as they did when they gave their word. They rarely go against how they feel to uphold principle, they obey emotion. https://twitter.com/aydj00/status/1288568709217423360

They incorrectly believe the way they feel *NOW* is always correct

They blindly trust emotion

This is the root of their lacking virtue and dishonour, not being grounded in anything consistent, coherent and concrete, but instead adhering to their whims.

"A woman's prerogative"

This is why you cannot rely on her unless you're in the driver's seat steering her emotions to complement what she's promised you.

If somebody else gets in that seat & their motives oppose yours, she'll betray her word. Woman's freedom enables many such threats to undermine you.

Rare is the woman who says "I don't feel the same way anymore, but I promised you I would, so I will"

No

You're more likely to get

"I meant it when I said it, but I just don't feel the same way anymore"

Meaning she has ZERO honour whatsoever

She is loyal only to her feelings

So how can you say she is consistent, simply because she is scared of authority and is disciplined enough by whatever upbringing she's had and environment she is in, to regularly perform the necessary chores and keep a sense of material orderliness?

Spiritually she is pure chaos

At a stretch, and I mean a real stretch, you can say women are more superficially consistent, they're more orderly than men, and more likely to consistently follow orders - I actually agree with this.

But in matters of honour when it counts most?

Absolutely not. They are weak.

And I say they are weak, because they will not go against how they feel to do the right thing.

They pick the easy path every time

"Obey how I feel"

And it's precisely for this reason so many men respect so few women

We don't respect the dishonourable, be they male or female

And although we certainly do not like this about women, the best of us have learned to accept it and not hate them for it, even though we would certainly condemn men for the same crimes.

But that's the thing about holding women in lower esteem

You hold them to a lower standard.

And this lower standard is in place to reflect their nature, and what they are capable of.

It would be all well and good to hold them to a male standard, because then we'd see more of the behaviour we actually like.

But nobody wants to be disappointed all the time.

Pragmatism.

We have, with the advent of feminism in the west, consistently held women to masculine standards of performance in all domains, be they moral, intellectual or economic - and they failed to prove themselves our equals on any of these measures - in fact, they beg for privileges.

So are women consistent?

Yes, perhaps in some very superficial ways, perhaps when it comes to their preferences in men, or certain inclinations they have, as in, they do have a codifiable nature which presents repeatable behaviour - but they *ARE NOT* reliable, they are fickle.

I meant consistency as in reliability, you meant consistency as in repeatability, if we evaluate by the latter definition, all people are consistent because all people have habits, which are the overlay for a more basal nature "the human operating system" - which is predictable.

In terms of agreeableness, women are agreeable in so much that a behaviour is socially acceptable.

Therefore if being rude, disobedient and arrogant is the status quo, she will agreeably exhibit disagreeable qualities - this is what we see in western influenced women today.

I do not believe women have any lesser desire to rebel or break rules than men, in fact, on the contrary, I believe they have a greater desire for this, given their relative envy of the masculine, heightened emotionalism and greater impulsivity.

The desire itself is not lesser than mans, but the willingness to act on it is, simply because women feel fear and guilt to a more intense degree than men, and so they're more easily stressed than men are, and hence are less able and willing to take considerable risks.

It is for this reason women are more collectivist in action than men.

That is to say, women find acceptance within a group, and then attempt to leverage the herd's power to express and manifest their individualistic preference through the group's strength.

Alone, they conform.

So a woman who may conform when she is alone, but secretly resents her position and feels repressed, will seek out allies/external groups which will enable her to rebel.

That desire to rebel is always there when she feels unfulfilled, she simply needs support to manifest it.

Where a man will say "fuck you and fuckoff" and is more likely to fight openly and directly, a woman will plot & scheme in the shadows to recruit allies.

Women are simply less confrontational than men, but this doesn't mean they don't try to impose their will in roundabout ways.

I could probably keep going for another hour with this shit, but I've noticed the time and overkilled the scenario that was presented, so it's time to shut off the tap on this stream of consciousness.

Hope you enjoyed this off the cuff thread.

/fin