Oops! Millions of years of evolution didn't turn out that way. Yeah, some chicks will be characters for whatever reason. Some will *think* they're characters when actually they're dull, unfunny, and unoriginal.

The reason men have personality as she describes is because without it men DO NOT EXIST and are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE. Men who fail to pass on their genes go extinct. Everyone is descended from a long line of men who were good at something (hunting, fishing, amassing wealth via financial Jewery, SOMETHING!). Women don't have to be good at anything to reproduce they just have to have a nice body and lie there like a starfish.

What bjork is espousing here is the same feminized cultural nonsense that produced the Charlie's Angels reboot flop where a bunch of otherwise hot chicks look as dikey and unfuckable as possible while complaining about men being wrong. That's the alternative, folks.

Women can have personalities... they just also have to be women. Period. And it's a total luxury to be hot and desired enough to say, wouldn't it be cool if I could gain 100 lbs and cursed like a sailor. Hey guess who never actually followed through on her plan to be judged solely by her personality? Bjork. Still thin, pretty, and white! Still using her beauty to sell records, I see!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48174481)

because she presents herself in a traditionally feminine way she clearly doesn't see anything wrong with embracing that. all she's saying is that women are individuals and shouldn't be judged, either positively or negatively, on their identity as women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48174569)

acknowledging that women are individuals is not the same as rejecting traditional femininity completely. that's basically the opposite side of the same coin as 3rd wave feminism. the schism between traditional and modern feminism is whether it's good or even acceptable for women to feminine. a modern feminist will accuse a woman who wants to be a SAHM a traitor to their gender in the same way you accuse anyone that doesn't completely embrace their traditional role as women as being a gender traitor.

because bjork embraces her beauty and incorporates that into her performance she obviously doesn't complete reject femininity. and she also rejects the modern feminist movement here by saying that women should not be treated specially because they are women.

i find that HEROIC women like bjork, rowling, jcm, fizzkid, gtttr, etc. tend to embrace their femininity and reject the idea that it's *bad* that women behave like women. they neither want to be forced to pretend that men and women are identical nor be forced to completely conform to a gender role. i notice that ARE heroic fempoasters neither run from their femininity nor try to be defined by it by getting acclaim through shit like thirst traps. i suspect are fempoasters tend to enjoy xo because they can participate in banter and their thoughts through faceless anonymity it a way that can be difficult to find irl.

your poast is primarily about how seeking to completely escape gender roles is impossible and stupid, but you also are saying people should reject the idea that they are anything but their gender role. that seems equally impossible and stupid to me. everyone wants to be viewed as an individual -- men and women. that doesn't mean that they reject gender roles completely. in fact, people like bjork and are fempoasters tend to embrace and enjoy being women. but acknowledging that they enjoy being appreciated for beauty, caretaking, emotional intelligence etc. in a way that men aren't isn't the same as accepting a role as a thoughtless tradwife. likewise, i think most men enjoy being masculine and like to be appreciated for their physical strength and ability to provide, they also don't want to be defined solely by their height and net worth.

being dishonest about gender and their motivations is what shitlibs do. i don't see any of that in the bjork vid. you are saying any desire to be seen as anything but your gender role is stupid and destructive, which seems equally as naive as "there is no difference between men and women" types. you certainly don't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing something faggy like poasting your thoughts online. you'd spend 100% of your time on stuff like exercising and making money. poasting certainly isn't conducive to being attractive to women and increasing your odds of successfully procreating, so why do you engage in it, other than express your thoughts as an individual and read those of others?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48174860)

STRIVING is what advances humanity in positive ways. Working until you die is essential and starting families and providing is necessary. We are here because of strivers which is why nearly everyone has it in them to strive on some level unless you're a genetic dead end. I am making an argument here against naval gazing in general. MOST PEOPLE regardless of gender don't have ANYTHING interesting to say or contribute. JCM is a rarity ipso facto and her collection of art, music, and movies is not the norm. But even still she's a far cry from Francis Ford Coppola it's not like she's going to buy a film camera and start writing and directing a la Kathryn Bigelow. The gap between a normie and a culture enthusiast is substantial and it's something you really only see from whites (Maine is more ethnically white than Norway at this point) or Asians who are hyper Americanized (think Steve Aoki). But the gap between an enthusiast and a genius is like the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire.

I don't know where I'm going with this but I disagree completely and I think you're massaging the point at any rate and the fact that two fempoas bumped this gleefully thinking that you have sorted all their emotions imho is proof positive that you are wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175092)

i also don't see think a person's desire to be seen as an individual beyond their gender role is determined by their talent. everyone wants to be appreciated for who they are beyond their ability to create more children. if you disagree, then why should i consider anything you say unless you've proven your superior talent or masculinity? are you a billionaire, professional athlete, or famous artist?

for as much as you talk about "human nature" you seem to be ignoring that all the stuff i'm saying *IS* human nature and what separates us from animals. we aren't just baby machines. while we are obviously also animals who are biologically programmed to continue the human race, we also did shit like make art and live for things that have nothing to do with procreation. it's odd that you even mention art it is completely unnecessary in terms of creating more babies and the conditions that'll allow them to make babies -- why does someone's talent in making art matter in your conception of the world?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175143)

Similarly "women having personalities" (though rare, and it can happen) is sort of a milquetoast way do define oneself absent any real drive or motivation to conquer. And it's sad when boring guys do it too. But to my earlier points ITT a guy may have to get a green mohawk, a couple tattoos, and do some jail time to "get a personality" because without it he's invisible to women and society at large. Women don't have this downward societal pressure to be something if they don't feel like it. Fempoas on XO are in themselves 99th percentile masculine-brained rarities to begin with (and they all seem to be on some universal level BPD + creative types to some greater or lesser extent).

Btw in response to another comment you made earlier I actually HAVE gotten laid from poasting fwiw. It's got a low ROI as a social investment but it's not a zero!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175174)

i think this existing is precisely what og feminism is about

also, you're lamenting that men need to impress a woman to get her attraction is the only thing itt that is the "human nature" denial shit you're complaining about. the whole reason women are gatekeepers of sex is about creating kids, dude. you complained that "women don't have to be good at anything to reproduce they just have to have a nice body and lie there like a starfish" which is untrue in terms of actually passing along their genetic line. a man's investment in creating a child is a few seconds of fucking. a woman must then raise them to maturity. that's exactly *WHY* they are programmed to be attracted to things like being strong and producing resources.

you act like this dynamic hasn't existed throughout all human history. when thousands of years ago men would be fighting each other to the death and only a few were able to procreate, often the social alphas with harems of women. you're the only one lamenting about the reality of human biology itt. and men are way better off today on average than thousands of years ago when you were at risk of a neighboring tribe killing all the men and taking all the women back to their village.

poasting to a woman got you laid. poasting to me might too, but not in a way that can result in a child. i know you're just being glib, but i sincerely hope your purpose in poasting is not to get laid. you're engaging in an activity that has a negative impact a person's ability to reproduce (while a few people might have met on here way more men have become internet addicts and less likely to start a family).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175201)

nearly every sexually dimorphic creature has evolved this way. this is why evolution resulted in male birds developing bright plumage to dazzle plain females. if you want to complain that women have an easier time attracting a man because there are lots of men that will fuck anything, take it up with god. again, this is the only "i wish human nature wasn't what it is!" ranting about something baked into our biology that has transpired in this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175242)

Your entire argument is predicated on twisting what I'm saying into a complaint that women have an easier time finding a mate than men, and that I'm pissed at biological reality. This could not be further from the truth. I have no issue with biological reality. I don't get mad for women being the way they are any more than I get mad at an alligator when it eats somebody -- it's an alligator.

The only thing I'm mad about is culture, something humans actually control (hint: Victorian is best!). Studies show women were happier in the 50s when they couldn't divorce, get an abortion, and had no rights. That's culture, not biology.

My point about women and their need for recognition (read: attention) for things that aren't related to their feminine guile is that it simply does not exist. For instance, there are no female pop stars who are not also hot (in addition to clamoring about how they ought to be more respected as an artist). When David Gilmour (the highest selling artist of the 70s) was crafting Dark Side of the Moon it was because if he didn't do it he'd've been an insurance salesman or something and live in a bloody Council Estate. But Taylor Swift could have just married a guy with money. She didn't *have to* become famous to obtain wealth and status.

Unless you're an extreme shut-in nerd type like Joan Didion or something all women use their sexuality as an advertisement for their art, that I'm aware of. This isn't me being angry at them for doing so. Just pointing out that they all do it. Women would NEVER turn in their woman card for an ounce more of respect/credibility for their personality. It's IN ADDITION TO. They crave nonsexual attention in addition to sexual attention.

All women that I have ever met, be they beautiful or ugly or in between, have a cadre of platonic orbiters who want to fuck them but they're not attracted to in return. And no woman ever turns these orbiters away. Again, I am NOT raging against biological reality. Low status males orbit higher status females. This doesn't make women bad people for doing this, it's just how they are. It does make loser guys chumps for orbiting but they really can't be helped and can't change most of the time. There's nothing about observable reality that anyone ought to be angry at. But we should be angry at culture. If a woman wants to be a great artist with a rich inner life she ought to lock herself away and churn out the next Frankenstein (which her husband wrote anyway). But they DON'T. They don't actually do this. Including Bjork.

They trot around with their STINKER in the air. And with Gen Z now they poast LEWDS online and then kvetsch about all the attention they get. It's so disingenuous! There are two dozen think pieces in major publications right now about Gen Z pop stars mental health and their unhealthy relationship with stalker fans who they ensnared with thirst traps on the gram. This is all about women having their cake and eating it too, which we should be against. This is all because marriage doesn't exist anymore and in the past a woman's husband was supposed to be her whole world and now women view men as sperm donors but they're all going to go off and becum Nobel laureates once everyone realizes what a special snowflake they are. Society ought not endorse this worldview. It's disgusting and sad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175266)

Have a good one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175354)

i responded here and even ended with a pointed question that went unanswered in an attempt to engage you on it

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&mc=39&forum_id=2#48175143

1) the desire to be appreciated for things beyond their gender roles is shared by both men and women.

2) you have not explained why this desire should be ignored because of any talent gap between the genders.

2a) you have not explained why this desire is ruinous for society to tolerate with women as a class but not amongst individual men.

2b) you have not explained why society aught only to tolerate expression by the greatest.

3) even if women were lacking in the way you're describing, they would want to be appreciated anyway, just like men, who are unlikely to be great genius in anything they do.

4) your focus on art specifically is ironic as there is no biological reason to produce art.

4a) especially your focus on singing. for the sake of argument if men were better singers, none would be superior female vocalists.

4b) you often cite fleetwood mac as an objectively great band, and it's lead by a woman.

***

summary: the desire to be appreciated for things beyond your gender role is universal between men and women. your reliance on art is odd since there is no human procreation reason for creating art. both genders enjoy expressing themselves through art even though very few could ever claim to be great at it. and the art you're talking about, singing, is fundamentally different between the genders and enjoyable for distinct reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175481)

Let's circle back to my initial poast ITT. FizzKidd and jcm are lauding bjork for being a kind of female platonic ideal they worship in a nonsexual way. Nothing wrong with that taken at face value. Bjork goes on to make a statement about how women ought not to feel obligated to be feminine if they don't want to. I consider this malarkey. Bjork is someone who used her looks and a variety of visual effects to get famous, none of which had anything to do with her unlistenable music. (Cf. Hardly anyone knows what Bach looks like or if he wore a weird outfit when he composed but his compositions are considered UNESCO in every culture that has been exposed to it).

So initially, I am refuting Bjork's statements. I don't believe her. She made a career out of capturing an audience who wanted to witness a twee Scandinavian woman in unnatural regalia making bizarre sounds as some sort of New Age performance art. This apparently has an audience although whom exactly patronizes it, I shudder to know.

The male equivalent of this same sex platonic hero worship is like a guy who's obsessed with baseball statistics. The type of guy who plays rotisserie baseball and travels to see the All-Star game. In essence, for man, to get stuck in this loop is extremely sad and pathetic providing he doesn't have the rest of his life in order and it's a manageable hobby. For most, I'm sure, it's not. Imagine a guy showing up on a date and talking about Ohtani's WAR. 9/10 times you're in genetic dead end territory. It's not the same for women who can be weebs and still have a ton of guys chasing them just because they're women. It's much sadder when guys do it because when a guy wastes his own time engages in hobbies he's actively losing whereas women can get picked up the next day with ease. The sexual value doesn't dip day to day. A guy could lose his job and careen off the mountain top.

If you want to come to some kind of consensus here it's in acknowledging that both genders have inner lives and concerns that are not explicitly rooted in seeking a mate. Is that what you want me to admit? That everyone has something platonic concerns? Yes, this is is ostensibly true. I don't know what greater point you're trying to make beyond that.

In my opinion the reason why Fizz anders jcm and countless other birdbrains like Bjork, is for exactly the same reasons guys do: that she's pretty. It's all so tiresome women pretending like they would just shave their heads and become rappers if not for the pressure to conform to femininity. Bjork didn't rejected femininity, she embraced it. Her act it's incredibly feminine, almost to the point where no hetero guy could possibly enjoy it except as another poasters stated ITT, to beat off to her music videos at 4am.

My point is that women who claim to not want to be women are lying, possibly to themselves, but certainly to others. They enjoy the status that's being attractive provides them. No billionaire would be want to be poor, either.

If your entire argument boils down to sometimes women do things that are not to seduced or appease men, I would agree with that. In fact, I think women chase their own dreams far too much. I think their dreams suck most of the time and are stupid. What can I say? I think most modern women are generally pathetic and I have to lie to them (and myself) to be in a functional relationship.

I really don't think you're catching on to anything I'm saying whatsoever but it's very simple to understand. Men have to be useful in some way and women generally do not. The societal pressures are not the same. Men typically have to obtain some sort of personality. Women do so at their leisure. The two are not the same. I don't know what else to tell you.

Stevie Nicks actually wrote some good songs and was hot and to my knowledge never made any bullshit feminist statements although I'm fully prepared to be corrected on that one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175612)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL7hsvPPQzE

a 180 artist friend of mine painted an incredible portrait of bjork for me, its hanging in my bedroom.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48174548)

Im sure you enjoyed your whacking 🤣

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48174637)

It's not about sex (though obviously I would admittedly DEFINITELY sex bjork if a magic fairy waved a wand and made her interested in me), it's about her being a fucking goddess and incredible woman. I'd rather put her on a pedastal than just bang her.

This is something that 90%+ of men will never understand because they are ruled by their dicks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310443",#48175185)