Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.
Jeremy:
Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”
[…] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.
Yohami:
”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”
So of course they want that often.
jf12:
Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.
Stingray:
Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.
Deti:
And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.
The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.
Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.
Women talk, Men do.
Josey Wales:
Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.
There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.
I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.
Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.
Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.
“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”
This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in The Medium is the Message:
We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.
From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.
Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.
Men Like Women
When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.
As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.
The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.
Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.
As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.
When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.
March 7th, 2014 at 7:32 pm
@caprizchka
“The level of literacy within the personal correspondence. . . . So much for the Progressive Era.”
Your sample is biased: it measures only those who could write and the gulf between the educated and the uneducated (those who couldn’t write) then was wide. And when things were more agrarian folks had time to develop their minds — work had seasons and work was not possible at night. But the industrial revolution created a need for workers and mass education followed suit in order to produce worker-consumers. Today, most Americans work so many hours, have almost no little leisure time, and are so mentally exhausted that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, sports, and American Idol are all the good folks can process. Most K-12 and undergraduate educations today are little more than job training.
The Progressive Era of the 1930s to the 80s was an overwhelming success and achieved what it intended – widespread middle class economic prosperity. Today, we spend more money incarcerating our world record prison population than we do educating the masses.
Anyways, this is far afield. Sorry, Rollo, for cluttering your blog with my off-topic BS.
March 8th, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Exemple of “deep meaningful conversation”
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W34LEhJDfxE
March 8th, 2014 at 3:30 pm
@Glenn: *No, they all just happen to begin with “mono”, that’s all.*
Incorrect. All of these “mono’s” define economic fealty no different from a pyramid scheme except for the various ideological rationalizations tendered.
*I’m 51 and wow, more and more I just don’t even bother having intelligent conversations with women.*
Your fealty to the above position has been thus demonstrated.
*I actually just leave interactions with women that aren’t interesting to me – and they don’t seem to mind. It’s a relief for both of us.*
I am so relieved.
March 8th, 2014 at 6:14 pm
@Rollo
I have gotten a lot of mileage from “What do you feel about that?” and “What’s really bothering you?” and then just letting her incoherent feminine waves crash against my masculine rock for a while before judiciously commenting. Women respond well to normative statements, how you would like things to be versus how they actually are. Superficially that might seem like a “feminine frame”, you need to somehow channel all of those feelings and energies into something goal-oriented, and that suits my masculine purposes. (I believe the pua term for this is something like ‘frame announcement’)
If anything the rookie mistake is believing the manly thing to do is “solve (non) problems” or “rationally” engaging in a debate about how to leave the toilet seat, etc. While this might seem like the more ‘masculine’ approach, in reality you are being drawn into the net of nonsensical women logic, or arguing just for the sake of arguing.
In any case, I’ve had plenty of “meaningful” conversations with women, often times the manosphere leaves the impression they are fishing in the shallow end of the pool. When you spend your time around woman you need a better communication strategy than grunting and scratching your nuts.
March 8th, 2014 at 9:48 pm
@ Caprizchka – Nonsense. You are babbling and I caught you out on it. Your response is absurd and not even hyperbole.
March 9th, 2014 at 1:42 am
don’t agree that women are better at multitasking and intuitiveness. Quite the opposite. Remember a 20/20 episode that looked into multitasking. Think of how men can listen while still doing something and not looking up at you and stopping what they’re doing. Which really annoys women when you do that. They think you’re not listening. Whereas they need to stop what they’re doing.
Women championing multitasking has turned into go to phrase like putting everything on men being insecure.
As for intuitiveness, think of the best improvisational musicians. Or how the dynamics that develop in team sports. Men are better at getting a feel for each other whereas women are more confined to set offenses.
Women’s intuitiveness with people is really just repeated subtle behavior patterns that they’ve memorized, and when they see something they just recognize it, or notice something different. And then try to say it’s intuition. Or it’s what they here from the herd(day time talk show) or the latest fad of what should be and they’ll really try to convince you that they’re right about what you’re thinking. No matter what you tell them is going on in your own mind.
March 9th, 2014 at 1:45 am
To Junior,
Alina Plugaru could still be a nice girl. After all, she is Romanian.
March 9th, 2014 at 3:20 am
@Glenn: *Nonsense. You are babbling and I caught you out on it. Your response is absurd and not even hyperbole.*
I get the hint. Best of luck in your quest, whatever that may be.
March 9th, 2014 at 10:06 am
Rollo said “Not because you’re necessarily a passive Beta, but that’s how women perceive men – as a girlfriend, when they communicate as her girlfriends would.” This is how it is.
March 9th, 2014 at 10:56 am
Not really, Jeremy. The thought of being in a relationship with someone you don’t want to talk to doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you aren’t excited to share things with them, learn their perspective, hear their thoughts, you’re just together for the arrangement of the relationship, not the actual person. If people are happy with that kind of structure, fine, but others are not satisfied with that. They’ve already transcended the basic Maslovian needs or have even adapted to proceed without them.
March 9th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
@GeishaKate – you have just described the typical hookup-culture/fuck-buddy/harem arrangement that has been de-facto created within today’s sexual marketplace. When young people are content with being in an arrangement where they aren’t excited with sharing things, learning perspectives, etc. They’re just together for sex, no more, and can go find another “partner” for that as and when desired.
The disconnect is when a woman then tries to act as though that arrangement were something more serious. Thus the “meaningful communication” problem that we are commenting about. There is no real interest in communicating with what happens to be a human-shaped vibrator, whether male or female. Certainly not at an early age.
This is partly why in the old days sex was in marriage only. It was taken very seriously. Much communication happened before that step occurred. I won’t go on ad-nauseum about the decline of marriage etc – that horse has been thoroughly beaten to death already. Various anecdotes and the like can be taken from all and sundry here and many other places in the Manosphere.
So yes, proper communication between the sexes is important from the perspective of marriage and the long-term raising of strong sons and worthwhile daughters. When there is no intent for true long-term (lifetime) commitment then there is no desire for true communication from either sides of the sexual equation.
From this situation the irritation from the male side of the equation erupts when the female side attempts to effectively change the arrangement – and the male doesn’t think that she’s worth the effort of doing so. Or the male does not trust the fidelity of the female. Nobody can be bothered entering a contract that is made in bad faith by one party because it is incentivised to be broken (millions of examples).
It therefore appears that the decline of marriage and the rise of hookup culture go hand-in-hand. Also the decline in real communication between the sexes. When there is no intent from an early age to seriously do the “til death do us part” thing, for either sex, attempting to switch tracks after 30 years of life is a dismal failure.
——————————
You mention Maslow’s Heirarchy of needs. From the male perspective there is no security these days in the Security of the Family (second level). Most males come from broken homes, where “daddy” is one of several men who share mommy’s bed as and when desired.
On the third level there is no Love/Belonging with Family and Sexual Intimacy. Again there is no safety: that Love/Belonging can be removed at a whim. Legally. The earliest example of this being when mother beats down on dad and/or they get divorced. Things shared and involved in the sexual intimacy are used as ammunition to get her way within or to end the relationship.
So men fall back to the most basic level and develop themselves from there:
His Physiological needs for sex get met.
His Safety is developed for the self only and especially involves protection from the female and often from former family members.
His Love/Belonging is restricted to friends, some select family members, and does not involve other females or the building of your own family.
His Esteem and Self-Actualisation levels are developed by and for themselves, no woman required or desired for that.
Result: massive social dysfunction, as we see around ourselves now. Women left in the icy cold situation of having to fend completely for themselves, no man to provide for any parts of her Heirarchy of Needs.
It is of no moment to the man who has developed himself when she suddenly decides that she wants to do certain things in her life, that she is now “ready” for them. That she wants to do them with him. Or that she finds his developed self to be absolutely awesome, attractive, wonderful, etc.
He has developed thoroughly without her. Remember the wild Bonsai from another discussion.
I’ll stop it here, this is getting tremendously long. @Stingray – this seems continuation of prior. Might be of use/interest to you.
March 9th, 2014 at 6:50 pm
“this is getting tremendously long” But it was worth reading.
March 10th, 2014 at 12:13 am
BPS said “His Physiological needs for sex get met.” and “she finds his developed self to be absolutely awesome”, evidently because he doesn’t need sex from her.
March 10th, 2014 at 12:45 am
@Kate
Yes really, Kate. The thought of being in a relationship with someone you don’t want to go survival camping with often doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you aren’t refreshed to keep things stoic and harmonious, discuss the finer points of international finance and business, hear their well-structured thoughts on how best to fix government, you’re just together for the arrangement of the relationship, not the actual person. If people are happy with that fem-centric “must share feelings” kind of structure, fine, but others are not satisfied with that. They actually come here to transcend from poorly constructed arguments and proceed without them.
Someday, I have faith that you’ll read what people are actually writing here Kate. You seem to be unable to see how your priorities might be fem-centric, and because of that your understanding of the red pill remains only half of the real truth.
March 10th, 2014 at 4:50 am
jf12 – yep, pretty-much any girl will do for sex. The less-attached the better. At least, that’s the vibe I get from the PUA and MGTOW community as a whole. It resonates with something inside myself. More below.
I don’t think that it has anything to do with any idea that the guy has no need of sex from her. I think it’s more a case of he’s got his shit together by prioritising himself. That translates to immense self-confidence, which is chick-crack.
Sex sells to men. Confidence sells to women. This is why irrational self-confidence is espoused in the PUA community.
————————
When I look into myself, I find the urge for the least attachment possible. Self-examination reveals a deep tiredness of mind-games, sniping, and silly manipulation attempts. This is why the last 6-7 girls I’ve been with I’ve dropped: completely not worth the constant effort for the mediocre reward. Note that I much prefer demure, feminine women – they seem to be in short supply in this part of New Zealand.
“You can’t handle a strong, independent woman!” Actually they’re not worth the effort, so I decline to bother stomping their inflated ego into a gooey mush on an ongoing basis.
March 10th, 2014 at 6:45 am
Asking a woman to stop caring about her priorities would be as absurd as asking a man to give up his. The point is to find a middle ground. Each person makes some concessions and the couple makes net gains.
March 10th, 2014 at 9:38 am
@Kate
You’ve already been answered, but you didn’t realize it.
If you want me to “listen, but don’t fix” then you’re deliberately asking me to work against my hard wired nature as a man. That is, no matter how you try to disguise it with “be with me in a relationship” nothing but unbridled sadism. Why would I wish to be in a relationship with such a person?
If you want a five minute vent to bitch about work, I might indulge that. But those 45 minute to 2 hour mental vomit episodes? No, no thanks, talk to your girlfriends if you want to unload for hours on end. I’m here to solve problems and keep things moving forward, bitching about life with no intention of looking for solutions is a pointless waste of time and energy.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:32 am
@BPS I can’t disagree but I must finesse. “That translates to immense self-confidence, which is chick-crack.” It depends. I’ve always been immensely self-confident in my abilities, in the same übernerdly way that Steve Urkel and Bill Gates had self-confidence. What women desire most from some men (e.g. attention and self-confidence), women find most repulsive from other men (“Who does who he think he is? Why is he creeping on me?”).
“When I look into myself, I find the urge for the least attachment possible.” I find within myself the urge for the most attachment, but I no longer believe women are capable of it. So I’m trying to want less attachment, instead.
March 10th, 2014 at 11:34 am
I sometimes think that it’s not so much our nature as problem solvers to want to fix a woman’s discontent as it is a desire to simply stop her constant, droning complaints.
One reason I believe women will never have true empathy for the male experience is because being a Man means not complaining about his condition. Men and women alike tell a complaining man the same thing, “Sack up, take it like a man, dust yourself off and STFU.” That being the male condition, men learn not to bother to ever seek compassion, understanding or anything resembling a compromise. Thus, he learns to solve problems for himself without complaint.
The guy who is the ‘good listener’, the guy who’ll pander to a woman’s venting is perceived as a ‘girlfriend’ because women are usually the only ones willing to entertain it. A man complaining, a man with a need to vent his personal conditions, by definition isn’t a “man”.
That is the definition of an emotional tampon – the phone friend who listens to her emote and is the shoulder for her to cry on in between sessions of her fucking the Man who doesn’t listen to her emote or complain.
March 10th, 2014 at 11:42 am
Re: men complaining. When I was young the guy who got the most attention from girls was the good-looking complaining loner. He complained about the weather, he complained about the school food, he complained about his girlfriend’s perfume, he complained about not being sufficiently appreciated. He complained about a teacher making him stay after school to take a test thereby missing a mandatory work-out for the football team, and in a rage he turned over the teacher’s desk. The girls were ecstatic to have something to talk about for several days nonstop.
March 10th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
IME men complain almost as much as women. The key difference is that men almost never use the phrase “I feel..” and this is crucial. Men complaint’s are combination of critique, analysis, and search for a solution to that will end the complaint. Men complain from the need to find solutions.
Women, however, seem to never have a complaint that doesn’t begin with “I feel…” That’s understandable because a woman cares most about what she is feeling right now. Expressing those feeling makes them more intense, and gives opportunities for other to validate her feelings, which allows the added bonus of feeling good about the feelings one is having in the first place.Of course the best person to get validation from is someone who is not emotive to begin with,it’s like getting the homeless guy to give you $5. There is no need to address the source of the complaint, because the source was never in the real world. Women don’t complain from a place of need, but rather a place of want. It’s the want that can turn a seemingly reasonable 10 minute rant about a co-worker into a three hour solo opera of wallowing self pity. A man providing a solution would be the spoiler.
Jeremy – “women value a man’s attention more than his reason.”
This makes perfect sense and explains the desire for high status men. Men actually do have better things today than listen to women cry about whatever. The woman who can get the high status man to listen to her cry for any length of time has won the game. A low value omega sycophant is always willing to listen and thus his attention is of no more value than a women’s, in fact it’s worth less because being a man at that point means he doesn’t even get the point of the complaint.
March 10th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
@BPS – It’s the fact that women have broken the explicit bargain of creating lifelong families with men that is at the root of the current social crisis. What chiquita’s like Kate can never acknowledge is that women initiate the large majority of divorces where young children are involved. That women are raising 1/3 of our children without fathers ever being involved. That women kill babies in their wombs in the tens of millions per year in the U.S. alone. Women changed their minds about how they wanted to participate in those lifetime social constructs with men – not men.
Many men – such as me, signed up to play the role of husband and father and provider, and then found out that we could be disposed of with very little social cost to the women who chucked us aside for the next guy because of the moisture between their legs. Fyi, I don’t long for the ‘good old days’ – but there was a some real social value and dignity in it. I served my family, and inside of that service I could inspire myself beyond my immediate needs and erections, to be bigger than myself and to sacrifice myself for others. I learned about dedication and discipline and delayed gratification – hell, I thought those were essential things to being a “good man”.
Ever more corrosive is that now women know they have the upper hand in marriages with children, so they exploit that power. I know so many married men who’s wives treat them like shit – it’s much worse among stay at home wives than among working wives. Most men I know would leave their wives in a heartbeat if it didn’t mean losing their children and destroying them financially because even inside of intact marriages, this power imbalance soaks every interaction. The man who wants peace walks on eggshells, bites his tongue and is eventually worn down to a nub by the “strong women” of today’s society. There are some exceptions as there is the rare women who “gets it” and figures out that playing girl in a relationship works without having to feel oppressed by it. I play boy – you play girl, we make family – seems kind of basic, but women just decided, fuck it, we’ll do whatever we want. Women changed the deal and don’t want to talk about it, and men aren’t supposed to feel ill-served by all this. Oh, okay. Lol.
One of the big shockers for men is realizing that women pay no social cost for chucking out husbands and Dads like last year’s handbag. There is no shame in it, nor does anyone ever dare blame them. In fact, they are lionized relentlessly throughout society as heroic, “single moms”.
So, men like me listen – too late, but still, even though I’m a 51 year old man (the only thing more useless to society than a man is an old man), I woke up. No more playing the game for others. No more measuring myself by how I stack up to the standards of some Rudyard Kipling poem. I get to be happy no matter what. My needs get met first and last. What Kate doesn’t seem to ever want to really get is that men like me really don’t give a shit what she or any other women has to say anymore. You see, it’s not just wives, it’s lovers and sisters and daughters and female friends and colleagues – it’s not marriage, it’s women, they’ve gone fucking nutz. And we’ve had it, we aren’t playing along anymore. We’re fucking done – and the Kate’s of the world can shriek like the hyenas they are, we ain’t coming back. Women aren’t worth it. Like BPS says, if it’s just about sex, one hole will do just as nicely as another, thanks. Most of the conversation was never that interesting anyway.
Chivalry is dead – yay, ooops, society is disintegrating, booh! Thanks ladies, nice work.
March 10th, 2014 at 1:13 pm
A girl was talking to me last night about her boyfriend complaining. She was getting pissed off at him because he was saying that he was really depressed, and her logic was — if you’re depressed, do something about it. Absolutely zero empathy/sympathy — less than zero. It was just pure disdain.
She’s in an almost identical situation to him: is really depressed, isn’t doing much about it…but doesn’t see that.
She showed me a part of the conversation where he confronted her and asked her what she thought made her so much better than him, what was she doing with her life that was so different from him…
…and she just said back to him “stop being defensive.”
I was really amazed at that. I didn’t feel like getting into that anymore so I just stopped messaging her at that point. I mean, really? She’s busting this guy’s balls over him being more or less in the exact situation and state of mind she’s in, as if she’s never experienced it before.
She said “I know”…but the “knowing” involved no sympathy or empathy at all, and that is basically the same as not knowing.
The only girl I was ever with was great to me. Sometimes I’d complain because I was having serious problems, and sometimes I’d complain a lot. She was always nothing but sympathetic and supportive. She would just say things like I’ve been through so much and can get through this, that I was really emotionally strong and intelligent, to not apologize for venting, things like that.
So it could depend on a lot of factors. But man, that conversation last night was an eye opener. I didn’t say anything, but in my head all I could think was, “Geez, you’re kind of a bitch.” It really made me think back to that other girl and I started missing her quite a bit.
If you demonstrate to a girl that you’re capable of being strong and confident and independent and enough of that really deeply sinks in and she comes to respect you, I think you can get away with a lot more than you ever could otherwise.
In my experience, trying to get sympathy/emotional support/anything remotely close to that from girls that don’t respect you is one of the quickest roads to misery, frustration and bitterness, and most likely misogyny too.
As they say, “Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces.”
March 10th, 2014 at 2:34 pm
@jf12 – I used to have a strong urge for attachment also. That part of me is dead. Interesting your other thoughts, I will think about them for a while.
@Glenn – yep, as I said though: that horse is long-since beaten to death. I am at the point where I no longer desire to explain it any more to women.
When I read the SCUM manifesto was when I realised that women collectively are insane. The Unabomber got put away, the writers of the SCUM manifesto should have as well. Instead women go around giggling at Bobbitt jokes. Deeply sick minds.
I disagree that chivalry is dead: IMO women collectively traded it in for careers. Most men simply haven’t gotten the memo yet.
RE: complaining. I remember that Florence Nightingale wrote in a letter that women are always collectively crying out for sympathy from men yet never give any in return. That it was something to do with them being self-absorbed and having no attention for men’s problems because they don’t have the time to remember them. Something like that.
This makes me feel more than sceptical regarding so-called Red Pill Women. Which is the root of my general disbelief at GeishaKate. Many here have noted that the “Red Pill” seems a thin veneer on her. Beauty is skin-deep, ugly is to the bone: if we scratch through the surface skin will the feminism to the bone be revealed.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:40 am
@Rollo:
I think the main disconnect is that men are now expected to relate like women. Thus, your reason and your capacity to solve any problem or complaint is irrelevant – the feminine is the dominant social frame now, so sit there and listen to her like her girlfriends would.
I think there are a number of disconnects. I had read once a very intelligent blogger (probably into psychoanalisis), stating some tenets which I can identify with major manosphere themes:
i) Women only value the “difficult” love, because of the emotional roller coaster provided by it, and the possibility of remaining passive (being pursued and playing the traditional passive resistance they love to play, etc.)
ii) They have gained freedom and power, but are unable to renounce their passivity in relationships, therefore they use their body to try to get relationships and/or social advantages.This looks like the main pattern in feminist societies. In other words, as they are unable to renounce their passivity, they have self-objectifiied themselves sexually.
iii) The whole process ended up increasing female intrassexual competition, casual sex hookup culture, etc., the rise of the “dark triad” personality, etc. In short: a mess.
Well, I am not so interested in this discussion. But this brings up some other “disconnects” I can see around.
1. Women are relatively “powerful”, i.e., with good curricula, earnings, etc.) in a world where men have been rendered quite powerless before them (either by having less or none sexual power and in many case even economic power). So they have few chances of being the “small girl” they would like to be before a mate “greater” than them.
2. In order to “compensate” for their lack of value, men are expected to have “game” and other compensations such being more “beautiful”, entertaining, engaging, athletic, etc.
3. Men have their own disconnect as well, because while they expect to find “traditional” girls to mate and/or possibly marry with, “traditional girls” (focused on having a husband, children, etc.) are not so common as it was, say, 100 years ago.
For instance, I always wonder: why do so many modern girls love rock, going to pubs, etc.? It looks like to me that it’s because they’re aiming at the transgressive type (usually associated with rock), with whom they will be able to realize passively their fantasies of sexual empowerment or liberation or whatever feminists have conditioned them to. I mean, way too many girls do not seem to fit the traditional, feminine patters and roles that most men expect (Cinderella).
So it looks like we have a disconnect in both sides? Men are expected to relate like women, whereas women are expected to relate like men. Yet women are women, and men are men and it will always be so in terms of sexual attraction?
Just rambling to point out that I think it’s more complex than just about “game”, “anti-game” and the sort. Understanding the road map to relationships in the post feminist world looks like more important than just having “game awareness”.
All the best.
March 11th, 2014 at 6:02 pm
@Tiphereth re: “I think it’s more complex”. Read a good portion of the articles under Rollo’s category of The Feminine Imperative before going further. Everything should clear up, especially about the social effects of unleashed hypergamy. Knowing the FI, we can predict that women would tend to try to engage in AF during their youth (i.e. up until age 29) when they can still pull the great-looking guys relatively effortlessly, and then after hitting the Wall either try to clean up their act for BB or just drop out and become cat ladies because in their minds they’re still 23 and can still get the Brad Pitts to look their way once in a while.
March 12th, 2014 at 1:01 am
[…] Feminine and masculine communication. […]
March 12th, 2014 at 8:24 am
@Softek:-
But man, that conversation last night was an eye opener. I didn’t say anything, but in my head all I could think was, “Geez, you’re kind of a bitch.”
Man you ain’t been there.
Only time I get sick is with hit&run viruses (I lived in a major global tourist destination and airport hub, a plague factory) and would have to get to bed for a day or so. Maybe twice a year. With strict instructions not to bother me in any way unless the building was on fire. Just me, pitch darkness and this here bottle of Greek communion wine, practically down in one. Works, for some reason.
So I’d be laid there sweating bullets and drifting in and out of the world, as per usual. But hark! what is this? O yea, every single time.
LTR is ramming the fucking bed with the vacuum cleaner, a thing she hid from in terror of some kind of mystical pollution, normally. And yelling. At 2300hrs. And 0600. and 1135.
“I can’t stand this any more, all you do is lie in bed and drink, while I work myself to death! Why should I spend my time looking after some one like you!” etc. (Nominally ‘self-employed’, basically looking obsessively at social media all day and happily prattling about celebs, 10 hours a week actual work, tops, year in year out).
Say wut bitch? fuckoff like I told you, and stay fucked off until I can walk (falls back exhausted by having to croak that out).
No chance, she’d be in every half hour with some more BS, even offering me food she knew I couldn’t stomach (and whining about that too!) And all the housework she was consequently burdened with (never did any apart from cooking endless elaborate meals (no tidying of culinary debris or washup either) and turning the washer dryer on six times a day. Told her many times to just leave my stuff in the basket, or chuck it in the bin if she finds it that offensive. Mostly rags anyway, nobody gives a stuff on site, main thing is staying warm.
The great thing was, she otherwise spent every single day till 11 am or thereabouts including weekends in bed, feeling “unwell”, only rousing herself briefly to tangle round my legs as I was heading out the door at 0700 with my toolbox, entreating me to come back to bed, it’d be so womantic. Aye, and I’d get fired. Pout pout pout you don’t wuv meeeeee.
Ever seen that film Paris, Texas with Harry Dean Stanton? It was only when I saw it when it came out that I realized WTF was up. She also slowly was turning into Gilbert Grape’s mom.
Thing is she wasn’t the only one (but was deffo the worst). I was beginning to think it was me, only capable of attracting psychos for some reason.
tl;dr
Otherwise sound women can oftentimes go viciously berserk if they are associated with a genuinely incapacitated man, no matter how trivial or transient the weakness. It seems to be completely outside their control. Raging insane, and of course completely illogical. They will simply not leave you alone for a second, if you can be got at. Hate, fear, resentment, the whole megilah. Doesn’t seem to matter that you’re puking green stuff into a pail and bleeding from the nose. Thou Shalt Not Get Sick on her watch.
Remedy? Withdraw, go stone-cold, fade away and …
Next.
No matter what, or how bad it feels. The mad behavior only gets worse if you Do the Right Thing, and try to “make it work”.
March 12th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
@Tam it’s not your sickness per se it’s your crowding of her territory. It’s the same reason so many retired men are berated by their wives: he’s supposed to be gone for 11 hours every day, leaving her queen of the castle. It’s simply the fact of his presence, his material existence, his having mass and occupying space. And eating her bonbons.
March 12th, 2014 at 7:22 pm
@JF12: No. It’s the sickness. Females are revolted at any sign of weakness in her man. Even female healthcare providers – AKA Doctors will treat a male with medical problems much worse than a female. My own wife gets noticably snippy when I have any kind of illness. The worse the illness the bitchier she gets.
This happens to every single man I have ever known. The minute that they get sick, the woman starts going batshit crazy.
March 12th, 2014 at 7:42 pm
@Tam @commenting – correct indeed. She is allowed to be weak and sick, he is not. Ever. I sometimes wonder if that is behind the old days of earlier mortality, men were not given the chance to heal up/get well properly.
This is personally anecdotal: when I’m not hanging around women I get sick a lot less. The times that I get sick it is far milder. Less stress? Less picking up random shit from her? Who knows the reason. I do find it curious though.
Speaking of nurses, the times that I’ve dated nurses I’ve been more prone to getting sick. It’s always been severe too. I wonder why that might be.
March 12th, 2014 at 8:53 pm
@BPSoul :- if they were anything like NHS nurses, particularly agency casuals, my experience is that they simply have no concept of personal hygiene or indeed infection control.
My main concern when stretchered into those people’s palaces (broken bits invariably, I must seem like a clumsy sod to whoever garners the stats; not so) is not that they reek of stale booze (spirits) or mellow Virginia, it’s keeping whatever I have in the way of carkeys, housekeys (v. risky) and phone about my person until I can hand them over to a friend.
Book your personal effects in, my arse. It only took the once to learn to shove my wallet in behind the old scrotum while laid up, in case I passed out. Wedge it in the bumcrack, that’s the ticket.
Oh and they steal the (labelled) patient’s food left in the ward fridge if you’re being prepped and haven’t eaten for three days or more due to admin fuckups. I suppose the allnight benders would make one a tad peckish coming straight on shift.
Nobody ever knows owt about it of course. And of course there isn’t any more to be had. Which is why you need your phone & wallet, for the Lucky Palace guy who’s suddenly promoted to a close relative (who just happens to be wearing a motorcycle helmet, toting a steamy bag and, er, looks somewhat oriental, for a ginger scotchman’s kin).
Ah the glories of “free”-at-point-of use medicine. I bet you’re all green with envy.
March 12th, 2014 at 10:07 pm
@Kate
“Let’s compromise.” —- Said by every dictator and evil man in history before they stabbed someone in the back.
The problem with your unopposable stance in that comment is that it comes from a position of, “I need a man to listen to me but never solve any problems that I speak of, and when you as a man complain to me I’ll become less attracted to you because you are whining. Oh and by the way, if you don’t talk to me we’re not in a real relationship.”
The idea that any woman actually wants to hear the inner emotional thoughts of her husband is laughably insane. Women *only* say this to justify their using of said man as an emotional rag to wipe themselves off with. So yes, women are really all about finding an emotional tampon in this regard. Unless you’re actually closing your mouth once in a while and valuing your man’s reason in regards to what’s coming out of your mouth; you’re only valuing his abused attention span.
You actually explain this quite well, though in a fantastically covert way.
Women just want you to listen and offer no solutions…but….
…being in a relationship with someone when you’re not excited to learn their perspective is just some kind of “arrangement” that isn’t an actual partnership.
So which is it? Women want to talk and have a man only pay attention and offer no response, but at the same time they want to express that communication is important and if you’re not communicating you’re not in a relationship.
Here’s a compromise for you. Don’t abuse my attention span, listen to me when I offer solutions, and maybe you’ll have less in your life that upsets you so much.
March 12th, 2014 at 10:14 pm
@jf12
That’s what I referred to “sexual power”: young girls, usually at their prime years of beauty, can fuck almost whatever “hot guy” they find along the way. Whereas young boys, at the prime years of the sexual development and emotional development, can only dream of fucking the hottest girls, because they cannot play a passive role in the process, and taking action requires learning and maturity, usually through taking risks and trial and error. I think most get busted, even traumatized along the process depending on how lucky they are or personal characteristics (natural mindset, personality traits, etc.). Yet they cannot count either on women to be understanding about their traumas. Again they’re alone and helpless in the process.
Thanks for your comment. That’s something I need to learn better about Rollo’s point of view, i.e., with regard to the “feminine imperative”.
March 12th, 2014 at 11:31 pm
@jeremy – compromise for a woman is taking advantage of deliberately-flawed logic. You mutually decide to partially agree to keep the peace and meet partway, followed by another compromise and you again mutually decide to agree and meet partway, then again ad-infinitum. Suddenly you find that you’ve “compromised” your way practically all the way into her frame and she’s the one calling the shots, in control.
This is a process like: Some P = Q, therefore all P = Q in small, staged steps. Some men are rapists, therefore many men are rapists, therefore most men are rapists, therefore all men are rapists (all PIV = Rape). This is Feminism’s borked logic/insanity in a step-by-step staged nutshell to the final end-result. I understand that Marx used much the same process.
This is why so many in the manosphere espouse never to compromise with women.
As an aside: Miyamoto Musashi is said to have recommended that the Samurai always stay resolutely on the Way. This was because even the slightest divergence will become greater and greater until the Samurai has completely lost the Way.
When you look at some of the Japanese and Chinese tales, you see that it is often a woman who brings a man low (Lure The Tiger Out Of The Mountains – which I must reread). They knew how to use a man’s weakness against him, distract him with his libido while stealing from him or trapping him.
On rereading, this comment is quite disjointed. Still the general gist and idea is there – and I don’t really have time to make it more coherent. Hopefully some of it will be useful.
March 13th, 2014 at 7:24 am
The differences between men and women are evolutionary in origin. To this day, men still “hunt” and women still “herd”. Hunting requires a triangle, a hierarchy. Herding requires a circle, a consensus. A hierarchy arises from competition, a consensus arises from commonality.
Competition selects for high testosterone, commonality selects for low testosterone. Thus men are risk amenable and women are risk averse. Their contrasting attitudes to risk explain their contrasting styles.
March 13th, 2014 at 7:24 am
Talking about problems and making general conversation are two separate subjects.
March 13th, 2014 at 10:28 am
@Tiphereth re” young boys … can only dream of … the hottest girls”. It’s not only the young, and *certainly* not only the hottest! Most men are extremely deprived sexually by women, deliberately deprived by women. Almost all women *enjoy* knowing the vast majority of men are extremely deprived. Depending on how yoy count, the majority of single men of all ages, old as well as young, are involuntarily celibate.
http://www.justfourguys.com/the-han-solo-seduction-leia-falls-in-love/#comment-14173
Keep in mind that in today’s culture the vast vast majority singles do not feel constrained socially to confine sex to relationships, so the only things keeping them from sex is
1) personal desire to have sex with some other person
2) that other’s willingness to have sex
The vast majority of men have way more libido than they know what to do with, so 1) is not their problem, so 2) is. Hence most single men are involuntarily celibate. Q.E.D. In contrast, the vast majority of women know that men are more than willing to have sex so 2) is not women’s problem, so 1) is, necessarily. The majority of single women are voluntarily celibate.
March 13th, 2014 at 10:51 am
Right… two separate rules for different situations. How typical of a female, “When I say this rule applies, it now applies, when I say it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply.”
Sorry Kate, your weaseling isn’t going to save your stance here.
What you want to convey in response to Rollo’s post is not what you’re going to allow yourself to convey directly (non-covertly) on this thread. This means your contribution is going to be (in explicit terms) meaningless noise as I demonstrated. That doesn’t mean that myself or others are not going to learn something from what you post. There’s always information to be gleaned in the noise. However if you’re going to try to chime in trying to contribute clear understanding, it’s best if you don’t contradict yourself. That means thinking clearly before clicking post.
March 13th, 2014 at 3:45 pm
“two separate rules for different situations” Exactly.
March 13th, 2014 at 11:40 pm
I think this sums it up
March 14th, 2014 at 11:15 am
In other news, ReturnOfKings bans commentators who fall prey to female attention whores.
March 14th, 2014 at 11:16 am
Saw that,
March 14th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
pure gold:
“I’ve realized the problem is not just females commenting here, but the men who reply to their stupid comments”
http://www.returnofkings.com/30942/you-will-be-banned-if-you-reply-to-a-female-commenter
March 14th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
I still believe in an open discourse, but I understand Roosh’s reasoning. Sometimes the only way for men to learn from women IS to reply to stupid comments.
Women’s outrage and rationalizations often prove my points better than I can illustrate them.
March 14th, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Truth, Rollo. I think that Roosh lost his temper after the low-quality rush of women commenters, he probably wants a higher quality of commentary than “Maureen” and co were providing. I guess that you can’t expect better after going triple-viral and getting a half-million screamingly incoherent death-threats and whining. (Slight exaggeration.)
Dammit I had something to add to the discussion here. Got sidetracked and lost it. Hopefully it comes back to me.
March 14th, 2014 at 4:23 pm
God bless Roosh and I do love RoK (i’ve written for him), but the commentary reminds me of the General Discussion forum at SoSuave. I worry that click traffic being more of a priority than meaningful posts will only delegitimize the red pill message.
March 14th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
Mmmmmmmm click traffic. Can’t comment on that one Rollo: you’d be more privy to that than us. The relevancy of various posts probably varies by the reader.
At any rate, I *think* that I’ve recalled what I was going to try and share. It’s kind of mixed up and messy, very raw thoughts regarding communication styles:
Men talk in order to do. Even if it’s just clarifying the thinking and bouncing ideas off others to help get a grip on things and make final decisions.
Women talk in order to spin. As in, propaganda-like, to spin reality into a form of her choosing, etc. I read somewhere that to a woman, the “winner” of a debate/communication is the one who spins the most bullshit on her opponent.
Thus the irrelevancies, changing frames, ad hominem attacks, social ostracising, etc are all tactics. Used to put the best spin out, the best lie, the biggest and best pile of bullshit upon her opponent. A lifetime of making herself look good makes a woman very good at the spin.
Which infuriates us men because we don’t talk to make ourselves look like “X” – it’s always to define and fix a problem. Like the kind of deck to build onto the house, bouncing ideas off other men, deciding “hmm that sounds good having a trellis there for a grapevine – fruit and shade both – be awesome in summertime”.
Taken further: with the feminine form of communication being the socially-accepted one, every interaction grates instinctively. Any woman around forces it into her mode. I’ll even state that any man who grew up without a father, or with a weak father, has little idea of how to communicate in the male mode.
Given the lack of male-only spaces these days it is an inevitable problem for this generation of men: attempting to communicate in female mode is not efficient for us. We cannot properly learn our own modes.
The constant spin enhances the princess and entitlement mentality also.
As an early member of the divorce generation, I am attempting to become conscious of my own communication style.
March 15th, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Kate
“two separate rules for different situations” Exactly.
March 15th, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Kate’s idea of “compromise” is that a man will do what she wants him to do when she wants him to do it.
By the way, Kate, there’s a nail in your forehead…in case you missed the two postings of the vid, it could be posted again, eh?
March 15th, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Rollo
I still believe in an open discourse, but I understand Roosh’s reasoning. Sometimes the only way for men to learn from women IS to reply to stupid comments.
Women’s outrage and rationalizations often prove my points better than I can illustrate them.
Different venues likely benefit from different rules. Some years back Zed was downright hostile to women who posted at Spearhead, and at the time I thought it was excessive. However, in time I came to see his point. Anonymous Age 71 (then Age 68) pointed out how his experience in the 1980’s with men in the divorce industry led him to ban all women from discussion groups, because too many divorced men were checking out via suicide. Once the women were gone and the counseling / support groups were men-only, the suicides stopped.
Consider the threads at justfourguys that include “Jen” vs. those where she’s been kept out. A clear difference in quality of discussion, a clear difference in getting to the point, and virtuallly no side rabbit-trails that lead only into a dark fog. Some women clearly disrupt with purpose, others just can’t help themselves. They can’t help demanding things from men, and some men can’t help but respond.
I understand your point of view, and various femmes such as CanuckTree2013 and Kate(never geisha) do reveal a great deal about the Female Imperative without even trying. But in some venues, where discussion gets intense, women are simply a liability, a distraction, at best.
So I understand both Roosh’s position and yours, and commend both of you for your work. Note that I don’t run a blog…
March 15th, 2014 at 6:41 pm
One of the first PUAs who took me under his wing observed a discussion by women and asked me: do you want to be right or do you want to be happy? It seems women pulling out dictionaries to argue over the meaning of words was not necessarily attractive! lol I answered, happy!
This is kind of what these debates remind me of. I don’t make the rules; I’m explaining them. Its as futile for men to rail against them as it is for women to protest they need to stay in shape. You can fight with women all day long on the internet, but it doesn’t change facts. The choice is up to you: do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?
March 15th, 2014 at 7:42 pm
Kate’s hamster:
This is kind of what these debates remind me of. I don’t make the rules; I’m explaining them.
Sure, sure, sure, and it’s not that you want to be able to think of yourself as right by proving all the men to be wrong, oh, no. Also it’s not that you want to give the men advice that boils down to “submit to the FI”, nah, nothing like that.
It’s not about the nail, either….
March 15th, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Being right makes me happy.
March 16th, 2014 at 8:57 am
There’s no question that I’m right, and there is really nothing illogical or inflammatory in the opinions I have voiced. You just don’t like hearing them. Any more than women who learn the true nature of men initially like what they hear. Our style of communication is as logical to us as being attracted to younger women is to you. The point is to rise above your reaction and find what is useful to you for improving your interactions.
@Badpainter: lol Nice retort. There may come a time, though, when it is an actual choice.
March 16th, 2014 at 9:11 am
Made that choice several times, both ways, better and happier to be right.
Go with what works I say. Of course the times when I don’t care at all it may look like I chose to be happy rather than right but it’s just indifference.
March 16th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Kate’s hamster:
There’s no question that I’m right,
Yes, yes, take the blue pill from Kate, it’s “right”.
and there is really nothing illogical or inflammatory in the opinions I have voiced.
You spout merely another version of “supplicate to the Female Imperative”, and then act astonished when some man rejects that?
You just don’t like hearing them.
You’re right, dearie, I do not come to this site to encounter the same gynocentric, blue-pill, “bow down before my female pedestal” garbage that is shoved at me 24/7 elsewhere. I don’t like women talking down to me from ignorance, either.
Any more than women who learn the true nature of men initially like what they hear. Our style of communication is as logical to us as being attracted to younger women is to you. The point is to rise above your reaction and find what is useful to you for improving your interactions.
Bowing to your Imperative is not going to improve anything in my interactions. The truth has improved my interactions. Being right about the true nature of women, despite obfuscations and fog such as you routinely post, that has improved my life.
Your “choice” is a false dilemma, and in fact yet another example of the FI at work. There is no “choice”. The more I get the facts of women right, the happier I am.
Go peddle your gynocentric, pedestalizing cow shit somewhere else.
March 16th, 2014 at 3:21 pm
I am not a regular around here, but still want to add my 2 cents.
Even though I’ve lost interest in intimacy as a result of taking the red pill, as well as having conversations with women; I still have a significant propensity to attempt to take individual womens’ claims seriously. As if I’m giving them a “fair chance” or something.
Though, that has almost always resulted in feeling vindicated for shunning them in general. Which is somewhat depressing, because I want to believe “not all women” really “are not like that”. That perhaps the current state of women is an inevitable outcome of our times and culture. It could be that women don’t bother to “mature” because they don’t have to, and beyond a certain point in their lives (say, twenties) it becomes exponentially more unlikely for them to develop further even with external prodding.
All that aside, I should state the following. No matter how much lust I might feel, I don’t think I could ever want to lay with a woman who thinks it’s only fitting that I withstand her incessant driveling. If I had to choose between that and being sexually frustated, the latter would be chosen without a shred of doubt.
Women can keep their “nail” to themselves…. Oh wait.
March 16th, 2014 at 3:46 pm
It’s better to be right than happy:
http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/17/extreme-marriage-experiment-suggests-its-better-to-be-right-than-happy/
March 16th, 2014 at 7:10 pm
I’ve seen that study before. Amusing caveat: “Obviously the results are to be taken with extreme caution…” LOL
The article is saying that you have to be acknowledged as right in order to be happy: that one affects the other. The dichotomy I was talking about was an either/or situation in which being right did not lead to happiness. I agree that agreeing just for the sake of agreeing ALL THE TIME is a bad strategy. But living in constant conflict isn’t healthy either. The timeless bit of wisdom is to pick your battles. Know a windmill when you see one.
Off topic: Sorry to hear about your dog.
March 16th, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Jim’s comment raises an interesting question.
What exactly is intimacy? What does that look like in a Redpill context?
I used to think I knew what intimacy was, in bluepill way at least. And I have come the realization that intimacy is either not worth shit, or I simply don’t get it. What I do know is that those times were I was informed intimacy had been achieved were not correlated with my feeling comfortable, more secure or less anxious rather it was the opposite.
March 16th, 2014 at 8:54 pm
As far as what intimacy is, “Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow” by Marnia Robinson provides some insights into that. It’s an interesting read.
In my opinion, intimacy is unchanged by the red pill. It’s the ideas and perceptions about it that are changed.
There’s a lot of dichotomy: sex, attention, and affection are all thought of as needs, but at the same time, if you’re not getting any of those things, the only way to get them is to take on the mindset of having an abundance of them.
And the guys who seem to have free access to all of those things have access to them because they don’t care if they have access to them or not.
“For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”
Then it all seems like the only thing we’re striving for is a state of mind, a feeling of peace and confidence and security, and then seeking sex/affection/attention seems pointless.
But then we crave these things for one reason or another, and then the cycle starts all over again.
The biological significance of sex beyond reproduction is not understood well at all. The biological significance of affection/touch/intimacy has, to my knowledge, been mostly looked at exclusively in the years of infancy and early childhood.
People who were hugged and held when they were babies but grow up all the way through adulthood without affection or loving interaction are left out in the weeds with no explanation for the effects that that kind of life could’ve had on them. I certainly never had a single person in my life say anything to me about the potential effects that might’ve had on me, that it could’ve been responsible for some of the issues I’ve had, or that loving interaction could potentially be necessary to help me.
And I’m sure the same goes for everyone else in the same situation — left out in the weeds with no voice. And all a lot of us hear in the media about these issues is “Sex and affection aren’t needs, because feminism.”
Personally, I don’t know what to make of it. All I know for sure is that it makes my brain feel very tired!
March 17th, 2014 at 2:09 am
Softer,
I get you about the tired brain.
Your abundance vs. scarcity paradox is interesting, but leaves out one possibility. What if I don’t want it? I suppose then it doesn’t matter outside of attracting any number people who then feel the need to sell me on the idea that I should want it, but then they’re just selling the idea of intimacy not offering it.
I guess I don’t get what women mean by intimacy. Surprising I know. Seems to be a shit test where she asks you to be vulnerable and express you weaker emotions and fears. When you do you fail, when you don’t you lack intimacy. It’s a demand to prove you’ll never demand she be emotionally supportive of you. Maybe the best response to a claim of lacking intimacy is tell her that her ass looks fat in those pants.
I had always assumed intimacy meant you had taken that person into your closet confidence and could express you feelings without judgement. I guess that works if you manage to read her mind and only express what she wants to hear.
And thus my redpill challenge continues: adjusting my desires to those things that do exist, and abandoning hope, and desire for those that don’t.
March 17th, 2014 at 3:15 am
I can understand why men should never express weakness or fear to women. In spite of all of their bullshit bravado, they are not actually capable of dealing with it.
This is somewhat analogous to why a mother should never unload real or imagined fears on her children.
A follower can only function best when she can believe that her leader will make everything turn out okay.
Telling her about significant problems that she cannot fix makes it psychologically much more difficult for her to accomplish what is actually within her capabilities, and creates one of the worst types of stress.
It seems that intimacy, like love, is only possible if you are greater than (and thus truly independent of) the object of your love.
Children, as young children, are not capable of taking care of their parents in such a way, because of their relative mental position and perspective. The same is perpetually true of women with respect to men. As others have said: “Men love women; women love children; children love puppies”.
Whatever intimacy is possible with a woman, it seems to be a limited version that can only exist in a fake reality that you (as someone that she looks up to) create for her. I empathize with those for whom this is not enough; I have also always wanted more.
March 17th, 2014 at 5:32 am
I am not even sure that “intimacy” exists from where I stand. Some of the following text might sound like I am rediscovering the wheel to some folks here, but for the sake of argument please bear with me.
Although I am grateful for the wide availability of “red-pill”/evo-psych content such as this site, processing this information has caused an intense re-evaluation of my own desires. Currently, I am uncertain that, the women, specifically the youthful and “loving” ones whom I desire for their own selves, would ever “desire” me in a similar manner. I think I was implicitly aware of this even before I took the “red pill”, but now I also have acceptable reasons as to why they “intimately” associate with men in the first place. I think that reason boils down to one thing; which is covertly controling a “strong” man.
I think the reason women love covert communication so much is because it provides them with plausible deniability as to whether they wanted whatever they got in the first place, which allows them to simultaneously maintain their posturing of being a “nice girl”. Best of both worlds and all that. I like to believe this mentality is not necessarily an indispensable aspect of female sexuality, though it inevitably becomes as such for an individual woman when she gets ravished by an “alpha bad boy”. Even worse if she “can’t help herself” but discloses her escapades to other women.
Given their physically weak and easily distracted, “socialable” nature, oftentimes the only means women have for material and emotional security are men. And the primary reason they can manipulate men to begin with is not because of greater cleverness, but because of men’s own innate “weakness” towards women.
In our “prosperous” society however, women have no fear of a lack of material means, and due to social engineering they are greatly exempted from being shunned as a result of their self-centered and shameful actions. It is no wonder that they tend to not mature.
That explains why women (heathen/immoral or “amoral” ones anyway) have a preference for the “badboy” types, that is to say uneducated, simpleminded knuckleheads who have nothing going for them, because such men not only give them great amounts of sexual validation, but also they are also so easily controlled by femimine “wiles” (covert communication) to give such women the tiltillation they seek.
Given the above, it seems to me the reason “dependable, nice guys” (geninune ones) fail to extract what they seek from women, is probably because what they seek doesn’t exist. “Nice guy” mentality (as I understand) is in truth projection, that is to say “If I love her she’ll love me”. He doesn’t realize that, from women’s perspective the whole charade is (I suspect) not about love; but about covert control. The problem nice guys have is not just they they’re less responsive to covert communication (because they’re more prudent/insecure/whatever), but they (likely as a result) don’t sexually excite women. Definitely not the ones who got “alpha-widowed”.
From the above, I understand there are two possibilities;
-Women neither love nor desire men themselves, their sexuality is thoroughly roughly self-centered, and they only desire to covertly control the most powerful and “attractive” men within their immediate environment to acquire the status, wordly means, sexual excitement and envy of “other women” for further validation.
-Women do desire and love men, but that typically gets mixed up with her other wants and needs/insecurities/social conditioning, and (especially if) she is the immature/immoral sort, she will lack self-restraint when it comes to keeping her neurotism to herself, as opposed to projecting it upon her man.
Of course, as a man I would like the latter to be true, but given women’s duplicitous nature I think it’s impossible to be certain at any given time. It is specifically this “uncertainty” which made me lose interest in intimacy. An approximately 10 seconds length of orgasm is so not worth dealing with all of this.
March 17th, 2014 at 6:01 am
Jim,
Thanks for that you’ve neatly summed my current thinking. What you say is depressing in a way, but at the same time it’s nice to be unburdened from the lies that go with chasing unicorns.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:03 am
Great discussions about intimacy. As usual, Rollo has this issue covered, earlier and oftener and better than anyone else, regarding women’s inability to love men properly.
I have become convinced that from an evo-psych perspective, falling in love is necessary in order to get men to stick around for a couple extra years after sex. These infatuation-goggles make it possible for men to stay while avoiding killing the obnoxious mother of their own infants, if not toddlers …
And therefore, falling in love is AT BEST vestigial in women. You cannot convince me otherwise.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:14 am
Actually this discussion inspired a new post. Good stuff gentlemen, thanks.
March 17th, 2014 at 11:21 am
@Jim, it has been very well known for over two full generations that for increasing sexual desire in women there is a complete lack of usefulness in increasing intimacy. Back when, in the 1970s, they called it the intimacy paradox, but now it’s merely another in the many uncomfortable truths about women, including the absolute, inarguable, narcissism of women’s sexuality, along with women’s complete lack of sexual charity. Naturally for *abused* women, “treat them nicer and more intimately” is great therapeutic advice, since much of the earlier funding involved abused women, but for ALL other women “treat ’em mean to keep ’em keen” is MUCH more effective.
The big trend in female sexuality studies in the past decade (or so) has been to get away from promoting orgasms and other man-like behaviors, including infatuation and intimacy, and instead emphasizing what women’s behaviors actually prove they prefer: being receptive and submissive, and even being masochistic (50 Shades etc). Among the researchers are Meredith Chivers and Julia Heiman, who wish to emphasize what actually works for women instead of what “should” work for them.
The big researcher in female narcissism in sexuality is Marta Meana, whom Rollo may want to add alongside Martie Haselton. She’s almost as good.
http://psychology.unlv.edu/Meana.htm
Meana rightly emphasizes a women’s needing to be desired by a dangerous man. The more desire the better, but only if there is danger.
March 17th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
@If12 – Great commentary and truly hard for a man to get his head around, yet it has to be true. My own experiences are all explained by women’s preference for submission and to be attracted to danger and their sexual narcissism rather than idiotic ideas about romantic love or intimacy or “trust”.
As a man, I feel as though my whole life (until choking down the Red Pill over the past year) I’ve been told up is down and black is white when it comes to women. All the trained “nice guy” crap I swallowed has failed me utterly. Yet I spent my whole life fighting my instincts to try and be that nice guy. It’s such a mindfuck at a basic level of my existence.
I wonder, am I the only man who finds all this disorienting? My entire male identity (i’m 51 now) was centered around doing for others at some level and about civilizing my brutish instincts. Being self centered and self motivated feels strange and like something less. I liked being a man who was trying to live up to something more than getting cash and ass. Don’t get me wrong, after getting my teeth kicked in by this effed up world, I’m done with it but this new identity doesn’t really fit me so easily. I feel rudderless and unmotivated. Is it just me?
March 17th, 2014 at 12:08 pm
I prefer the term ‘enlightened self-interest’ – I cannot help others until I can help myself.
March 17th, 2014 at 12:22 pm
@Glenn re: “Is it just me?” No, it’s most of us. I actually hate that the world is the way it is and that women are the way they are. My only conscience-comfort is that I am not to blame for it being this way; it wasn’t me that broke women.
March 17th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
@if12 I didn’t break women either. To me, the worst part of all this is the destruction of the family as the core organizing unit of society. Nobody is happier – not women nor men – and children are doing much worse without both bio parents in the house. Yay feminism!
March 17th, 2014 at 1:55 pm
@Glenn, won’t it be weird when women get fixed? By which I mean a pill that will make women sexually appreciate nice men. I know it can be done, but women would resist it.
March 17th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
@jf12
I don’t think a pill would work for that purpose. I think a electromagnetic ray gun could be designed instead, I mean a microwave transmitter that when fired upon women would stimulate their sexual lusts and entice them dramatically. As long as such women first provide their partners with legal consent, I don’t think there would be any problems.
In all seriousness though, I don’t seem to desire sex anymore. The knowledge that what I want doesn’t exist, or at best can’t be proven has dramatically reduced my sexual lust. Reminds me of a fascinating video of Stardusk on Youtube; “Intellectually Induced Asexuality”
By the way, thanks for the references.
March 18th, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Kate’s hamster:
The article is saying that you have to be acknowledged as right in order to be happy: that one affects the other.
No, it is not. Once again you dribble feminist cow shit all over the place. The article is saying that a supplicating man who acknowledges a woman as right all the time won’t be happy, and neither will she, because men and women are different, no matter what your hamster may be squeaking right about now.
The dichotomy I was talking about was an either/or situation in which being right did not lead to happiness.
The false dichotomy you offered up is exemplified in the video posted twice on this thread, “it’s not about the nail”. There is no dichotomy for a man who knows the truth about women.
I agree that agreeing just for the sake of agreeing ALL THE TIME is a bad strategy.
You agree with a strawman…or, as your feminist hamster would squeak, a strawperson.
But living in constant conflict isn’t healthy either. The timeless bit of wisdom is to pick your battles. Know a windmill when you see one.
Living in constant conflict is what blue pill men do, all their lives. They are constantly in a state of conflict between what their deeply buried masculine nature says, and the piles of feminist cow shit that have been dumped onto them orders them to do. But when a man learns the truth about women, and really becomes the leader of his house, then the constant conflict ceases.
Forget about windmills. Know a feminist when you see one. Kate (no geisha) is the current exhibit, but not the first nor the last.
March 18th, 2014 at 7:25 pm
I prefer the term ‘enlightened self-interest’ – I cannot help others until I can help myself.
“In case of sudden loss of cabin pressure, put your own oxygen mask on first before helping others”.
March 19th, 2014 at 10:43 am
@AR re: “Living in constant conflict is what blue pill men do, all their lives.” Yes, not just with their own natures but with women. What blue pill women do, all their lives, is make beta males’ lives miserable through constant conflict and contradiction, a kind of motorized ball-and-chain always actively pulling opposite from where you need to go.
re: “But when a man learns the truth about women, and really becomes the leader of his house, then the constant conflict ceases.” Yes to an extent. She’s still a ball and chain, but more passively now.
March 21st, 2014 at 2:57 pm
What a successful Alpha Male needs is a venue where you can pick up a hot, barely legal from a rich family, that has worn a chastity belt for her entire life.
March 31st, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Manson,,,, a rational response to the men leaving might be to ask, what made them leave? A man would give up duty to another through a powerful motive.
September 10th, 2014 at 12:17 am
[…] Women Talk, Men Do […]
February 13th, 2015 at 3:12 pm
[…] I’ve illustrated before, women talk, men do. Women’s gatherings are arranged for the purpose of relating to one another and in this […]
February 16th, 2015 at 8:15 am
Art mirrors your sentiment – women talk, men do – exactly:
“Niggas wanna get it, Hoes wanna gossip.”
Truer words hath never been spoke