The chaos of female nature is a universal 'constant' throughout space and time. Irrespective of the civilization/society or era of human history, the troubles and chaos of female nature is always present.
'Modern women' appear to be the worst generation simply because of modern technologies with access to information like the Internet, social media and portable devices that can record audio/video e.g. Smartphones. If older generations of women were young again and brought into present times will they be any different? Their 'decent' behavior was not by choice but circumstance. Middle eastern or Islamic women appear well behaved compared to Western women not because they're 'different' but because their men are different.

This is not recent phenomena at all, as it was with how old Nordic, Arabian, ancient Japanese and Chinese men judged the antics of women and kept them in check, as also with a book in the bible---written over 2000 years ago---stating (Ecclesiasticus 25:13 & 19): No wound is as serious as wounded love. No troubles are as serious as the troubles that women cause. Compared with the troubles caused by a woman, any other trouble looks small. May such women suffer the fate of sinners.
It goes even further back in recorded history, with philosophers of ancient Greece such as Aristotle stating: "Wherefore women are more compassionate and more readily made to weep, more jealous and querulous, fonder of railing, and more contentious. The female also is more subject to depression of spirits and despair than the male. She is also more shameless and false, more readily deceived, and more mindful of injury, more watchful, more idle, and on the whole less excitable than the male. On the contrary, the male is more ready to help, and, as it has been said, braver than the female; and even in malaria, if the sepia is struck with a trident, the male comes to help the female, but the female makes her escape if the male is struck."

Similar to the misconception of previous female generations being better (by choice) is the common misconception of many men taking a woman's inaction as a 'virtue'. Because woman A doesn't engage in vices like woman B (at least not openly) she is clearly virtuous. They believe woman A's inability or fear of tainting her reputation (being shamed/judged and reducing her chances of acquiring a lifelong provider) is from her choice.
This misconception not only leads to equating quietness for goodness or purity but also to the well known rhetoric of a woman being 'good' because she frequents a church or is (overtly) religious.

If completely left to their own devices, women will not be good or decent people, rather they will openly prioritize their primal instincts over morality or integrity. They only behave/act like decent human beings when they have no choice but to appear decent i.e. due to circumstances and not principles or a sense of judgement.
It has been proven that every instance of a strong matriarchy in history (a social system where women have power/authority over the people) is always present in a morally declining society.

Like women's Dual Mating Strategy - where the female conceives for a male she deems higher or alpha (that she's actually attracted to) and then has a male she deems lower or beta provide for her and her spawn. Essentially, born for the bad boy (Alpha animal) and deceptively give the child to a nice man (Beta animal). How can this strategy, as well as the other amoral strategies of women, (openly) work in well-functioning society without inciting chaos?
Men of old were not dumb. They were well aware of the dangers of female nature to men, women themselves, and ultimately society. The patriarchy was not created by a cabal of women-haters but by men of sound and stoic minds who demanded order in society.

Any woman I will marry must have the spirit of self control, else, I’ll use my decorum to avoid her running mouth like cancer.

Can’t just beat the garrulous nature of some women, especially those addicted to social media.

I pray marry a wife like my mum who rarely talk.

Typing...

For man to create, he needed to evolve. With his strength and logic he created civilizations but to build and maintain societies he needed to evolve even further.With logos, he created concepts to uphold the society he had built and to separate himself from beast. These concepts exclusive to man were morals, virtues, integrity, honor, principles and justice.
Woman, not expected to build or maintain but to be protected and provided for like offsprings, had and has no reason nor incentive to evolve. And so, she is devoid of the concepts born of man. Consequently, the lack of necessity to evolve and her disinclination to do so prevents her from reaching a higher plane of existence - This simply means women did not evolve to be decent or good people, hence a strong reliance on their 'nature' as they follow their instincts, biological impulses and primal urges almost like animals.

Man's concept do not apply to the beings of nature---animals---because it will only hinder them. If a 'predator' sees 'prey' but takes a moment to ponder the moral implications of killing it, by the time it's done contemplating the prey is far gone. To be efficient as possible, whether to kill prey or escape predator, the animal needs to be 'amoral' and 'completely rely' on its nature.

Man---flawed but with 'concepts'---stands between God and beast whilst leaning towards God; Woman---flawed with no true grasp of 'concepts'---stands between man and beasts whilst leaning towards beast.

Like a beast, woman in her amorality acts on instinct, and because such instinctual actions are typically frowned upon in society she then 'emulates' logic to rationalize said actions. For instance, the female animal, when given the option, will always prioritise mating with a male with good genetics (to pass off to her offsprings) --- mating with these males numerously (promiscuity) or while in a relationship (infidelity or paternity fraud).
These acts of 'promiscuity' and 'infidelity' are not judged in the wild but goes against man's concepts in society, so she then attempts to temporarily lean towards man and exploit logic. She may claim to have been raped or taken advantage of, make her spouse 'responsible' for 'her actions' ("He's not giving me attention" ), regress to a child unaware of its actions e.g. "I don't know what came over me.." or "I don't know, one thing just lead to another..", or claim it was a mistake (which she will [instinctively] repeat).

"No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them."
- Otto Weininger

Praxis758:
Any woman I will marry must have the spirit of self control, else, I’ll use my decorum to avoid her running mouth like cancer.

Can’t just beat the garrulous nature of some women, especially those addicted to social media.

I pray marry a wife like my mum who rarely talk.

A quiet man living with a nagging wife is like an old man climbing up a sandy hill
- Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 25:20

Typing

Cc essentialone deewhydoski Havertz29s Olarewaju89 Desusi

Marriage is also a concept of man, created to further maintain order in society. Marriage works for man evolved, but unfortunately, not for female nature, and from a survival perspective, what good would it do for the weaker female? (It should also be noted that, as the weaker sex, the female's survival instinct is always active even with security/stability).
Women are quite willing to engage in this legal and holy union for the stability it brings. But while the legality and holiness of matrimony can suppress female nature to an extent, it does not quell the primal yearnings and chaos of it; so of course, a female strategy would be implemented (when given the chance).

Women can either see men as provider or sexual attractant - two mutually exclusive entities, or as Esther Vilar would put it; Father-substitute and Sexual partner (this also ties-in to the Dual mating strategy).
This is also why man and woman cannot truly be friends like man with his fellow men. She will either perceive him as Provider (providing money, favors and/or [free] attention) or Sexual Attractant (friends with benefits). Where the male cannot be perceived as either the "friendship" cannot exist.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and when a man sleeps with a woman he has, in a sense, defeated her; Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, and when a woman gets a man's commitment, or make him fall in love, she has defeated him.
The difference is that, while the man can still feel the virtue of love for a defeated woman; woman lacks this virtue, and consequently will begin losing attraction for the defeated man.
(Ephesians chapter 5 states "Men love your wives; Women respect your husbands" - It doesn't state that both parties should 'love' each other. In fact, it is never stated anywhere in the bible that women should love men because, as Lawrence Shannon would put it, It's a biblical principle that God doesn't ask from individuals that which they DO NOT HAVE the means to accomplish).

Because marriage or commitment to a single female is not a signal of a 'cold' strong male in nature the female can only perceive him as a Father-substitute to protect and provide for her and not a Sexual partner to sexually arouse her. This quickly transitions to the stage where she can only have sex with her father-substitute out of necessity, not sexual arousal.
This is also the foundation for the extremely common and infamous complaints of married men and their greatly diminished sex-life amongst other things... something I do find funny is when women and some men use the rhetoric along the lines of "If you're looking for sex just marry, you'll have sex till you're tired/Na you go f*ck tire..."

Now that the 'provider' half of her strategy has been satisfied with 'security', she can now covertly seek the other half outside (given she's not held back by circumstances). This is understandably a disgraceful thought and a bitter pill for both married men and single men enthusiastic about marriage.
It is a somewhat known fact that with many married women, bedding them is not exactly a challenge. Some of the most intense "green lights" given to single men are from married women.

(In line with this is a previously sexually active woman suddenly "disliking/hating" sex or losing interest in it - this is simply a sign that the male has been given the short stick of her strategy. Not excluded from this are non-virgins saying they don't want to have sex till marriage).

It is a bit unfortunate that many men only find out about the numerous problems of marriage and female nature the hard way, too late (several years into marriage with a few kids), with some daydreaming of vanishing into the night, while the more practical ones plan an exit strategy once the kids get older.
To show that women are quite intentional, fully aware of what they're doing and are only kept in check by circumstances, some married women will start acting a bit more 'sensibly' when their children mature, because now there's little holding the man back from leaving.

Let me pitch my tent here to learn

Interim.

Something I've noticed that even happens in horror movies/shows is when there is danger somewhere and a woman is trapped a man swoops in to save her but when the guy is in trouble the females usually just let him die or escape. Loyalty is something that is not in a woman's vocabulary. Like most men don't realize how easily a woman would push you off a cliff for her own benefit.

Typing...

Beautiful piece.

Tunde835:
Something I've noticed that even happens in horror movies/shows is when there is danger somewhere and a woman is trapped a man swoops in to save her but when the guy is in trouble the females usually just let him die or escape. Loyalty is something that is not in a woman's vocabulary. Like most men don't realize how easily a woman would push you off a cliff for her own benefit.

The "fairer" sex, indeed.

this is very good... well done

Bro your write up is incredibly smart

Man embodies his concepts and because of this, he projects his ideals onto woman in order to perceive woman as his moral, just and principled equal; that may love him as truly as he loves her --- which is why he is often bamboozled when he finds that woman has 'broken free' of the ideals he dons on her; and why he oft contemplates why women do the things they do.
Unfortunately, this projection---as noble as man believes it to be---is disadvantageous to him. It makes him believe that women are just like him, and the 'trust' he gives women, the very 'kindness' and 'altruism' he extends to them, will be used to take advantage of him. Men forcing concepts on women, rather than simply seeing women for what they are, is why society deems women the "fairer sex".

In a situation between a man and a woman, men are more than happy to leap into action and defend the fairer sex as soon as a woman cries foul, as men and society collectively believe women are morally superior whilst women would leap to the side of woman, irrespective of what she did, and likely attack the man - It is said that deep down every woman is a feminist, but the ones who openly proclaim are just outspoken about it.

Zuleikha, wife of Potiphar, made sexual advances towards Joseph but Joseph refused to sleep with her. Zuleikha decided to take revenge by 'falsely accusing' Joseph of 'rape'. Potiphar, upon hearing this, immediately pounced on Joseph, throwing him into 'prison'. Despite this incident being documented in one of the oldest and most widely read books in the world --- the bible --- this 'exact' format is still being used by women today with 'high success rates' and is one of the longest running examples of men failing or refusing to see women as is.

Here's a guest appearance by Kaycee54321 to further emphasise on this:

"As in, regardless of the no. of previous partners across board for both genders, the number of men who claim to be "Very Happy" in their Marriage always outnumber the number of women who say the same.

This just highlights the emotional fragility of the average male. Man go think say e don figure out e union, meanwhile deep down, the woman may not be happy and is already scheming an exit strategy while the man is in wonderland.

-This is why men defend their women more frequently than women defend their men.
-This is why on NL, men post pre-wedding pics more frequently than women post same (regardless of the toxicity on this space).
- This is why on other media, women post pre-wedding pics more often than men (where they get love, light & best wishes).
-This is why an average man in Love will tell you that "all women are not like that"; unlike an average woman in Love who will tell you to "Trust no man".

Because an average man has physical strength but makes up for that by being emotionally weak."

Another example of man's concept and woman's lack of it is that these very ideals are what enable men to project them in the first place, and prevents him from looking past it with women - Women, on the other hand, simply cannot project ideals because they cannot give what they do not possess, and so they see men as tools --- this is also the key reason why men have strong empathy for women and women barely have any for men.
Men would not project their virtues on women if they saw women the way women see men.

Unfortunately, ignorance of female nature is not without consequences. It may be joyous to perceive women as equals but sooner or later, in the long run, the truth---the chaos---will be met.

"Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them to be—and are ruined." - Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)

Typing...

Hypergamy - another amoral aspect of female nature which is the survival instinct to always ensure security for the female by constantly (mentally) being on the prowl for a better mate.
But here's an interesting part of all this that is often misconstrued to be a virtue of woman: Faithfulness.

Like the rest of man's concepts, faithfulness is not beneficial in the wild. It doesn't matter how long the female animal has been with a mate, her instincts will always prompt her to seek a colder, stronger, better male. Tis' why the human female is far more inclined towards the cold stereotypical bad man who couldn't care less about her than a good/nice man who's all to willing to give her attention (for free). As the weaker sex, she is naturally exploitative for her survival, but the 'cold' man has no altruism or kindness towards her to exploit - and so she sees this as 'strength' (This is also the reason a female cannot be attracted to a man who "saved" her).

Even if the mate of a female animal is killed by a stronger male the female's hypergamy will still kick in, prompting her to follow the stronger male as a new mate - that's how ruthless hypergamy is. She acts instinctively for her survival and mating irrespective of morals, integrity or love because these traits are not compatible with hypergamy.

Love would create a strong, hampering attachment to the male, and hypergamy needs quick detachment to be effective, hence; within hypergamy lies proof of woman's inability to love man as man would love her.
Every female has hypergamy, and how hypergamous she is simply dependent on her circumstances. This hypergamy also works hand-in-hand with their dual mating strategy.

Here's an interesting comment thread to further expound on this:

Person 1: "If that's the case then how do people manage long term healthy relationships?"

Person 2: "They don't. Unless the girl has no scope of meeting guys of higher standard than you due to the area they live in or she may be a very lazy person or unsocial. Hence, she just doesn't get introduced to better guys that she is currently in. You can never expect loyalty from her. And understand she will never love you the way you want her to love you. She may love you but that's not the kind of love you're expecting from her. We are inherently different. Don't be
disrespectful to women, but try to understand their nature and how it works in their head."

Nice one Dizzyyish.

I wish most men can be liberated only if wishes were horses.

I'm at a Stage in life where i'm viewing most prople doing everything i have learned and experienced. The feelings is just too sweet when you understand Life and Humans to some Extent.

I'm still learning more though.

Evolutionlove:
Nice one Dizzyyish.

I wish most men can be liberated only if wishes were horses.

I'm at a Stage in life where i'm viewing most people doing everything i have learned and experienced. The feelings is just too sweet when you understand Life and Humans to some Extent.

I'm still learning more though.

Honestly..

For instance, it is during certain events that one can see these lack of virtues---their inability to truly grasp or comprehend how a man feels (lack of empathy towards men)---en masse, whether it be the justifications of infidelity (e.g. "Maybe you weren't giving her attention" ), the defence of paternity fraud (e.g. "The child called you Daddy first.." or "It doesn't matter if the child is yours, be a responsible man" ), the rationales that it is okay to take a man to the cleaners and for half of everything he's ever worked for (and will work for: alimony), etc.

In these 'events' involving a man and a woman (for example, the long past Mason Greenwood or Hakimi cases), one can see the two sides of women's solipsism:
1.) She condemns the man, not by truth or justice but by how see feels towards man, with a stubborn resolve on her feelings almost mirroring that of an extremist.
2.) She defends and takes the side of man---not by a strong sense of justice (which she lacks) but by the pretense or hysterical imitation of 'empathy' towards men for her own benefit e.g. Chameleons and pickmes.

Because of their lower level of existence, in the metaphysical sense, they are incapable of actually empathising with anything or anyone they can't identify with (on a personal level) i.e. a fellow woman (or child). And it is due to this universal solipsism of female nature that even if a woman is concerned about the 'event' but keeps silent she still falls within the aforementioned categories (most likely the first one).

How can one make you trend dizzy!!

You spew facts only known to gods!

In the "relationship" between Lions and Gazelles, gazelles are the 'weaker'. To compensate for their weaknesses gazelles find strength with the Herd. What the herd lacks in individual strength they make up for in numbers, and they are several advantages too - for example, several gazelles banded up together would have several ears and eyes in multiple directions to heighten their perception of danger. Should a gazelle spot a lion it will be startled, in turn alerting all members and prompting them to flee from demise. In a way, the herd has gotten its own power.

Now the disadvantage of the herd is that it doesn't really work for the ideals of an individual under civilization. The groupthink and survival single-mindedness is not necessarily needed in a human society and deprives its members of the rationality, sound reason and independent thought that comes with individualism.

A key aspect for the herd is acquiring and passing information within and outside the herd---like a network of sorts---for survival or to acquire/maintain power.
With women this is, getting info about men with money, giving poor relationship advice to men (typically "simp" advice to keep females in power) or even fellow women (out of envy, an attempt to sabotage her relationship and replace her [or just plain ignorance] ), discussing on how to---and herding-up---to persuade a male to do something for a female or for themselves (usually with the male getting the short end of the stick) or make a lie by a member of the herd more convincing (to a man), sharing tips and tricks on how to take advantage of men (or just bragging about how they manipulate men), etc.

Research shows that mothers and daughters have the strongest generational bond between every other parent-child pairing. Only this (herd) pair of mother and daughter can sit down and comfortably discuss private and sensitive topics about (their) men with themselves, as the older female discusses with the younger on how to manipulate her spouse (this also extends between sisters). It is also said that when dealing with a woman you're not just dealing with one. There's always a herd behind her consisting of female friends, relatives or both that are, to some extent, aware of your matters---open or private.

Here's an interesting comment to further emphasise on this:

"Women in groups gossip and scheme. You might not believe the personal secrets (theirs and of course those of their husbands) that they share with one another. They'll make all kinds of scathing remarks about other people, but when said people are present, they will pretend to be kind. Women in groups also come up with plans, especially to find men for one another. First, they pick out an available man based on some bogus criteria: tall, dark, handsome, rich, successful. Next, they work together to get one woman a date with the man. Later they work as a team to pressure the man into marrying the woman.

Women's actions in groups prove that you can't trust the sincerity of a woman's emotions or motivations, which makes becoming romantically involved with a woman dangerous. Furthermore, men would be turned off to (become uninterested in) a woman if they saw that side of her."

They speak about men as if they speak of livestock, and converse about their exploits and manipulating men as if planning a bank robbery. Listening to a group of women, female relatives or female friends who do not need to put on a "mask" in your presence, or being within earshot of such conversations can be an effective way of greatly reducing any sympathy one has for women.

"If man knew how women pass the time when they are alone, they’d never marry."
- O. Henry (1862 - 1910)

While everything you wrote up there is 100% true but then they were relevant in the unconscious past. The grip of unconsciousness on human race is loosening up bit by bit. So humans re now more conscious and pick their options more consciously.

For instance.... In time past pple pick partners to suit or please the Society, parents, pastors or religious leaders, but in this millennium most pple pick partners based on their own individual preference.

My dad married my mum cuz his mother approved it. My mum didnt approve of mine solely cuz she's from another tribe but i didnt budge.

The issue of religion comes into play.... Most pple tend to question their believes now. Same thing with pple consciously finessing their attitudes unlike in time past.

Child bearing too is an example.... Most pple stop at 2 now unlike in time past when pple go up to 10 children.

Those points i outlined might not be related but my point is that pple make more conscious decisions now as opposed to time past when pple acts out of instinct just to survive harsh realities making them going extinct.

So your theories cant be used to project the behavior of the new female/male specie cuz he/she isn't acting out of survival instinct but out of conscious effort to make his or her life more enjoyable.

With a (strong) reliance on survival instincts, a Machiavellian nature and disregard for ethical concepts, it really cannot be stressed enough how effortlessly woman lies. Most men usually wonder how women can remain unfazed by the number, magnitude or extent of their lies because they don't see things from her perspective.

To her, her lies are just mere words, like the rest she vapidly evokes when she chatters without judgment or principle. She really can't understand his fixation on something that's 'clearly not a big deal.'
There's an old saying that goes "Whatever a man finds honorable a woman always finds disgusting."

"A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it; Veritas norma sui et falsa est. There is nothing more upsetting to a man than to find, when he has discovered a woman in a lie, and has asked her, "Why did you lie about it?" that she simply does not understand the question, but simply looks at him and laughingly tries to soothe him, or bursts into tears."
- Otto Weininger

Side note:
When accused of something one did not do, the typical emotional response is anger.
So, is it then not suspicious that when a woman is approached with a question on if she has done something, the first emotion is sadness so intensified that they immediately start shedding tears?---when this is her response it should be met with strong skepticism (not taken at face value) as it is extremely likely that she's guilty of said thing.

"Woman is untruthful. An animal has just as little metaphysical reality as the actual woman, but it cannot speak, and consequently it does not lie. [...] Anyone who objects to a statement without ever having realised it; any one who gives outward acquiescence without the inner affirmation, such persons, like woman, have no real existence and must of necessity lie. So that woman always lies, even if, objectively, she speaks the truth."
- Otto Weininger

Very enlightening piece.
Thank you.

Dizzyyish:
Marriage is also a concept of man, created to further maintain order in society. Marriage works for man evolved, but unfortunately, not for female nature, and from a survival perspective, what good would it do for the weaker female? (It should also be noted that, as the weaker sex, the female's survival instinct is always active even with security/stability).
Women are quite willing to engage in this legal and holy union for the stability it brings. But while the legality and holiness of matrimony can suppress female nature to an extent, it does not quell the primal yearnings and chaos of it; so of course, a female strategy would be implemented (when given the chance).

Women can either see men as provider or sexual attractant - two mutually exclusive entities, or as Esther Vilar would put it; Father-substitute and Sexual partner (this also ties-in to the Dual mating strategy).
This is also why man and woman cannot truly be friends like man with his fellow men. She will either perceive him as Provider (providing money, favors and/or [free] attention) or Sexual Attractant (friends with benefits). Where the male cannot be perceived as either the "friendship" cannot exist.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and when a man sleeps with a woman he has, in a sense, defeated her; Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, and when a woman gets a man's commitment, or make him fall in love, she has defeated him.
The difference is that, while the man can still feel the virtue of love for a defeated woman; woman lacks this virtue, and consequently will begin losing attraction for the defeated man.
(Ephesians chapter 5 states "Men love your wives; Women respect your husbands" - It doesn't state that both parties should 'love' each other. In fact, it is never stated anywhere in the bible that women should love men because, as Lawrence Shannon would put it, It's a biblical principle that God doesn't ask from individuals that which they DO NOT HAVE the means to accomplish).

Because marriage or commitment to a single female is not a signal of a 'cold' strong male in nature the female can only perceive him as a Father-substitute to protect and provide for her and not a Sexual partner to sexually arouse her. This quickly transitions to the stage where she can only have sex with her father-substitute out of necessity, not sexual arousal.
This is also the foundation for the extremely common and infamous complaints of married men and their greatly diminished sex-life amongst other things... something I do find funny is when women and some men use the rhetoric along the lines of "If you're looking for sex just marry, you'll have sex till you're tired/Na you go f*ck tire..."

Now that the 'provider' half of her strategy has been satisfied with 'security', she can now covertly seek the other half outside (given she's not held back by circumstances). This is understandably a disgraceful thought and a bitter pill for both married men and single men enthusiastic about marriage.
It is a somewhat known fact that with many married women, bedding them is not exactly a challenge. Some of the most intense "green lights" given to single men are from married women.

(In line with this is a previously sexually active woman suddenly "disliking/hating" sex or losing interest in it - this is simply a sign that the male has been given the short stick of her strategy. Not excluded from this are non-virgins saying they don't want to have sex till marriage).

It is a bit unfortunate that many men only find out about the numerous problems of marriage and female nature the hard way, too late (several years into marriage with a few kids), with some daydreaming of vanishing into the night, while the more practical ones plan an exit strategy once the kids get older.
To show that women are quite intentional, fully aware of what they're doing and are only kept in check by circumstances, some married women will start acting a bit more 'sensibly' when their children mature, because now there's little holding the man back from leaving.

With a lack of concepts and a constant focus on self-serving interests, the three core pillars of women's interactions with men are Double standards, Hypocrisy and Plausible deniability. These are the "dogmas" women use when dealing with men.

1.
Double standards are dogmas deeply engraved in the minds of women as a result of solipsism. So much so, that her lack of sense of justice can easily be seen with her inability to comprehend her double standards when she speaks. If brought to her attention she'll argue you into the ground from her egocentric pov on why she feels it's right, and even if she doesn't argue she doesn't just discard this dogma she previously showed, she'll just acknowledge her stance is socially unacceptable in a man's world but deep down she feels these 'standards' (a lot being mindless) makes complete sense.
It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to benefit her...

Some common examples of women's "Me first, men last" double standards:

● A broke woman seeking a rich man for his money rather than working for her own is accepted and expected, but not the other way around.

● A woman leaving her man for a 'better' man is accepted and expected, but not the other way around.

● A woman most likely cheated for a good reason (she had no control over), but not the other way around.

● A woman can reject a man as she wishes and still expect him to be friends, but when a man rejects a woman she resents him or, in some cases, considers him gay.

● Women showing courtesy (chivalry) to men is sexist, slavery or stupidity, but not the other way around.

● A man kneeling for a woman is fine, but not the other way around.

● A man hitting a woman is completely intolerable, but not the other way around.

● A man giving his woman money with nothing in return is expected, but not the other way around (in her mind, it's unfair to give you both her money and vagina).

● Nothing wrong with making a man responsible for a child that doesn't belong to him, but not the other way around.

● A man dating an adult woman younger than him is creepy or exploitative, but a woman's preference of dating older men makes complete sense.

Double standards are why "anything that benefits them irrespective of how it affects men is 'good', anything that benefits men is 'neutral at best', and anything that benefits men but inconveniences women is 'evil'."

2.
Hypocrisy is perhaps the most well known dogma of women, and is to Double standards what a battery is to a car. Hypocrisy is proof of the absence of principles and the capacity to reflect in women. For example, women believe, as the weaker sex, they can do whatever they want to men with reckless abandon because they believe men can/should take it, but they also believe that, as the weaker sex, men should hold back when men do to them the same things they do to men (or not do it to them at all).

From this dogma the endless contradictions of women arises, showing that women speak not because they should, but because they can.
If a woman makes a contradiction, she doesn't stop to think or have a double-take on what she just said - because it doesn't register in her head, so far as it benefits her.

A woman can say a thousand things and not mean a single one. Her mind is split between concepts and primal instincts, as her word emulates the logic of man but her actions follow the instincts of beast, resulting in her words and actions typically being forward and backwards respectively.

There's an old French saying along the lines of "A woman's word is written on ice" meaning it is ephemeral and meaningless, as opposed to the sayings "A man's word is his bond" or "A man is only as good as his word" meaning a man's willingness to honor his words and convictions is what separates him from the beasts.

Another example of the hypocrisy in women's actions, their preference of instincts over ideals and their discordance with kindness from men are the terms they give certain men:

"You're stingy", "Your wife will suffer..", "You're wicked/heartless..", etc.
Vs.
"You're a really sweet/nice guy", "You'll make a great husband/dad", "You're a soft/calm/God-fearing/gentle guy..", etc.

They state how much they "love" the latter men but are repulsed by them. The latter are assigned to the men they perceive as weak, who fulfill their self-serving interests; the former are assigned to the men they perceive as strong, who they are actually attracted to and respect.
This is hard to spot for a lot of men simply because they see the latter as compliments and have no reason to think deeply on it, notwithstanding how it strokes the man's ego and is a tool used to lead him on (and is also cause for concern when women unanimously praise you for something you did or said).

All these (and more) are reason enough why it is considered wise to not trust women's words or take them seriously.

Dizzyyish:
2.
Hypocrisy is perhaps the most well known dogma of women, and is to Double standards what a battery is to a car. Hypocrisy is proof of the absence of principles and the capacity to reflect in women. For example, women believe, as the weaker sex, they can do whatever they want to men with reckless abandon because they believe men can/should take it, but they also believe that, as the weaker sex, men should hold back when men do to them the same things they do to men (or not do it to them at all).

From this dogma the endless contradictions of women arises, showing that women speak not because they should, but because they can.
If a woman makes a contradiction, she doesn't stop to think or have a double-take on what she just said - because it doesn't register in her head, so far as it benefits her.

A woman can say a thousand things and not mean a single one. Her mind is split between concepts and primal instincts, as her word emulates the logic of man but her actions follow the instincts of beast, resulting in her words and actions typically being forward and backwards respectively.

There's an old French saying along the lines of "A woman's word is written on ice" meaning it is ephemeral and meaningless, as opposed to the sayings "A man's word is his bond" or "A man is only as good as his word" meaning a man's willingness to honor his words and convictions is what separates him from the beasts.

Another example of the hypocrisy in women's actions, their preference of instincts over ideals and their discordance with kindness from men are the terms they give certain men:

"You're stingy", "Your wife will suffer..", "You're wicked/heartless..", etc.
Vs.
"You're a really sweet/nice guy", "You'll make a great husband/dad", "You're a soft/calm/God-fearing/gentle guy..", etc.

They state how much they "love" the latter men but are repulsed by them. The latter are assigned to the men they perceive as weak, who fulfill their self-serving interests; the former are assigned to the men they perceive as strong, who they are actually attracted to and respect.
This is hard to spot for a lot of men simply because they see the latter as compliments and have no reason to think deeply on it, notwithstanding how it strokes the man's ego and is a tool used to lead him on (and is also cause for concern when women unanimously praise you for something you did or said).

All these (and more) are reason enough why it is considered wise to not trust women's words or take them seriously.

Redpil 101. Welldone man.

3.
Plausible deniability is quite interesting. It's the most subtle of the three pillars because unless you're anticipating it, you often won't notice until something unfavorable happens.

For a gender that disdains accountability, Plausible Deniability is a windfall. It allows them to reap the benefits of any given situation that tickles their fancy while setting the stage for accountability dodging & blameshifting should the situation become unfavorable.

This is commonly used for a man giving money or gifts without her (directly) asking---she does not reject it but receives them with open arms---and when shit hits the fan and the situation becomes unfavorable for her she'll employ P.D to the effect of "Ehen, Did I ask you to buy me [so and so]? You're the one that gave me.." And thanks to P.D, she'll (technically) be right while the man will likely feel stupid.

For example, if she wants to fix something that belongs to her but doesn't have the money, she'll indirectly tell the man (e.g. by complaining) and if he gives her the money or fixes it for her she can now use P.D when an issue arises between them---because technically she didn't ask him, he just gave her, so whatever is going on was not initiated by her = not her fault.

This is also usually seen---in platonic & non-platonic relationships---when they prompt or pressure a man to action or to do something (risky). If it turns out okay they can reap the benefits with him and/or take the credit for initiative, but if it doesn't, they can avoid risk by employing P.D, as he is the one that acted or did said thing.

Another instance is 'indulging' without 'tainting' her reputation. This one's a classic. For example, she is wants to go to guy's place for sex---she knows what she's going there for but she'll first setup P.D with her friends by saying "I want to go to [so and so]'s place to watch/collect movies" and the guy will likely be the one to initiate sex, so if things become unfavorable for whatever reason she can then convince (rationalize to) herself and others that he's completely responsible for the situation (and there was nothing she could do whatsoever).
She might say something like "I'm not really in the mood to.." or "I don't feel like.." even if she does or wants him to "be a man and take it" (e.g. rape fantasy [not a good idea] )---but most importantly, she does this as future blameshift so if she indulges and then deems it unfavorable (e.g. regrets it or somehow gets caught) she can then play victim, rationalize it in her head that she (initially) "didn't want to..." and justify it to anyone who gives her a listening ear.

This can also be seen in how they talk. For example;
"He took me to his..." not " We went to his..." or "He was telling me..." not " We were discussing..."

The best ways to disable Plausible Deniability is to be on the watch for it, wait for her to directly ask for something, or act based on what she explicitly said/asked (not hinted at) if necessary - that is, No is No and Yes is Yes.

And that's the wonder of Plausible deniability ---- Getting benefits while avoiding any 'accountable' casualties.

The 'moral superiority' of women:

"There are such endless imitations of ethics, such confusing copies of morality, that women are often said to be on a moral plane higher than that of man. I have already pointed out the need
distinguish between the non-moral and the immoral, and I now repeat that with regard to women we can talk only of the non-moral, of the complete absence of a moral sense. It is a well-known fact of criminal statistics and of daily life that there are very few female criminals. The apologists of the morality of women always point to this fact.

[...] No doubt the male criminal inherits his criminal instincts, but none the less he is conscious-in spite of theories of "moral insanity"—that by his action he has lowered the value of his claim on life. All criminals are cowardly in this matter, and there is none of them that thinks he has raised his value and his self-consciousness by his crime, or that would try to justify it to himself.

The male criminal has from birth a relation to the idea of value just like any other man, but the criminal impulse, when it succeeds in dominating him, destroys this almost completely. Woman, on the contrary, often believes her- self to have acted justly when, as a matter of fact, she has just done the greatest possible act of meanness; whilst the true criminal remains mute before reproach, a woman can at once give indignant expression to her astonishment and anger that any one should question her perfect right to act in this or that way. Women are convinced of their own integrity without ever having sat in judgment on it. The criminal does not, it is true, reflect on himself, but he never urges his own integrity; he is much more inclined to get rid of the thought of his integrity, because it might remind him of his guilt and in this is the proof that he had a relation to the idea (of truth), and only objects to be re- minded of his unfaithfulness to his better self. No male criminal has ever believed that his punishment was unjust. A woman, on the contrary, is convinced of the animosity of her accuser, and if she does not wish to be convinced of it, no one can persuade her that she has done wrong.

If any one talks to her it usually happens that she bursts into tears, begs for pardon, and "confesses her fault," and may really believe that she feels her guilt; but only when she desires to do so, and the outbreak of tears has given her a certain sort of satisfaction. The male criminal is callous; he does not spin round in a trice, as a woman would do in a similar instance if her accuser knew how to handle her skilfully.
I am not arguing that woman is evil and anti-moral; I state that she cannot be really evil; she is merely non-moral."
- Otto Weininger (1880 - 1903)