The Love Experience

experience

Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:

@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.

The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.

There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.

This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.

From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.

zdr01dz posted this:

I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”

This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”

The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.

Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.

I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.

So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.

I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.

I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.

So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.

Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.

It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.

In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

750 comments on “The Love Experience

  1. @AlphaFemale

    All the other men here are so defensive and insecure about their beliefs they have attacked me left and right for daring to oppose them.

    Yaay for solipsism on display!

  2. Condensing Alfalfa’s chin-dribble down to its essence: Women’s sex choices are driven by their cortex, not by their amygdala, so women make rational sex choices.

    Bwahaha

  3. @theasdgamer

    Condensing Alfalfa’s chin-dribble down to its essence: Women’s sex choices are driven by their cortex, not by their amygdala, so women make rational sex choices.

    Much like those currently (and past) in charge of the financial sector, you have to put lipstick on a pig when it’s blatantly obvious to everyone that some very poor choices are being made and you’re the one who does all the selection.

  4. Novaseeker,

    Ah. The ever present non-bitchy unicorn that you married seems like a not so nice lady. What do they say about lobbing ad hominem attacks? I mean maybe while getting the PhD even though she’s a lowly women with inferior worth to all the men in the field, she could’ve researched ‘ad hominem’ attack and concluded like all the rest of us that are actually educated that they are made by people with weak arguments.

    Please tell her from a feminist that I hope she enjoys that PhD that was bought and paid for by women that actually believe in equality. She wouldn’t have it were it not for women like me so she can have all the seats.

    @zdr From a utilitarian perspective, yes the vampires have better resource acquisition skills; however, being human was very highly valued by the vampires (above their own skills, which your wife will attest to if she’s being honest about the book). Bella wanted to be changed into a vampire, but Edward and the other vampires tried to talk her out of it because they said it would destroy her soul to be like them. This is the problem with Red Pill, you take one aspect of one part of an entire narrative and use it to justify your point without realizing that the whole thing is much more complex than that. I saw someone do it with that new movie, Into the Woods, the other day, which I saw. They said “look that woman left her BB baker husband to kiss/screw the AF prince.” Did anyone mention that the AF prince was cheating on his princess or that his princess left him for the baker BB? NOPE. Hm…A very narrow viewpoint is what the RP theory is.

    Will come back later to follow up on more comments.

  5. Feeding hyenas?

    From Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom:

    In addition to scouring other predator’s meals, hyenas will eat lizards, birds, snakes and insects but also have the ability to take down an antelope or wildebeest. Because their jaws are so strong, hyenas have the ability to eat bones, teeth and hooves.

  6. re: “Imagine that a group of women are gathered and chatting.”

    A lot of my life is spent like this, not imagining, but amongst groups of chatting women. The women minutely dissect every short-term man, but in regards to discussing their ltr men there are three types of women.
    1) Just like on facebook, a whole lot of women claim their guy is the very best because (she says) he thinks she’s the best. These women essentially compete to show how beta their male is, although they would couch it in terms of his compliance, what he does for her (instead of what she does for him), purses and shoes she gets to buy, etc. Guess which kind my wife is.
    2) Essentially every time a woman complains about her man being mean, it is humble bragging. “And then after he bonked me on the head with his club, he dragged me off to the bearskin rug in the back of the cave, and …” and there is pretend sympathy. “You poor dear! What’s his number, anyway?”
    3) About half of women in any group are the designated herd, with supposedly ineffectual men who supposedly break things around the house and supposedly not trying hard enough at work.

  7. @Rollo

    Yep, it’s an outlier, nothing to see here…

    Damn you and your your your… LOGIC and your EVIDENCE and your REASONING! How dare you bring them in to an argument where they belong?

  8. re: “It is a fallacy for you to continue to assert that behavior seen in both males and females is inherently dissimilar to the point that it colors the value of an entire gender. THAT is a fallacy.”

    Technically THAT is a bias. So sue me.

    Regarding feminists’ hatred of male things, I note you bypassed the psychologytoday link discussing the negative effects of society’s bulldozing male spaces. There are plenty more references along that line; but just more for you to ignore, probably.

  9. re: Mutiny comment “I mean what is the point of being a woman in your eyes? Is there an objective to life other than providing sex, cooking, cleaning, and raising babies and little girls?”

    Well, there are other services too: grooming your man, petting him, rubbing his back, etc. Making him glad to be alive. Making him glad to be a man. Helping him fulfill his wishes. What did you think your point of being a woman was? Being a ball-and-chain drag aka “challenge” aka sinkhole?

  10. Biology trumps culture when it comes to women. When the cultural controls come off, biology resurfaces. Every time. Biology is something Alpha Female cannot possibly admit as it is too much in conflict with her frame. Only debate is that chicken and egg thing about whether women’s biology pushed the culture or the culture slacked off, giving women’s biology the opening to punch through. I suppose that’s a whole other topic worthy of its own post should someone try to tackle it.

    For me, the greatest revelation the red pill offered us was this: if there is an observed difference between a person’s words and that person’s actions, the actions represent that person’s true feelings far more closely than any number of words that person says, no matter how loudly they say them. The elephant in the room corollary: this is every bit as true of women as it is of men. Anything and anybody that teaches differently on this corollary is lying to us. But we’re still presented with the lie when it comes to women.

    Hence I am finding gigantic, out of this world, beg me to take back the blue pill dissonance when I read Alpha Female’s arguments that women are actually lying through their actions when those actions don’t reflect their words. Even when they do the same thing over and over again, she is somehow expecting a different result? Functional definition of insanity, right there. What am I going to believe: her words or my own lyin’ eyes?

  11. Just what every plowhorse wants in his life: come back to the barn to find yet another “challenge”, yet another load, yet another task to complete.

  12. @Jeremy re: “Women are in TOTAL denial of the gifted power they have over humanity, complete and utter denial.”

    Because with acknowledgment of power comes acknowledgment of responsibility i.e. duty i.e. having to actually do something.

  13. most entertaining and congrats on the comment count. w/r/t what to post next – what would an emotionally untriggered Amused Master do? Does an outlier really need an immediate response even if they are more articulate and measured than most? On the other hand, I find the attitude about “that was already addressed back here” ahhh, shall we say . . . un-Master-like. Few have read or thought about these matters as much our host or most regular commenters here, but we can let someone know that something has already been addressed without denigrating them for having the temerity to speak up. Finally, I note that – having been painted inaccurately so often by the very broad Feminazi brush of ‘all men are…,’ I find the ‘all women are…’ tactic equally unfortunate – and potentially just as filled with projection. At some point our worldview reveals more about ourselves than the world itself.

  14. Jeremy
    January 9th, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    @AlphaFemale

    All the other men here are so defensive and insecure about their beliefs they have attacked me left and right for daring to oppose them.

    Contrary evidence is an attack. And in fact it is. But it holds more weight than just saying, “You stupid c*nt.”

    And “dare to oppose” ? Very little daring required. But the attacks must be made to appear strong to prove her “strength”. But in a forum like this real strength is evidence. Of which I have seen none from her. Screeching is not evidence.

    =============

    I wonder if not attacking alfalfa with facts or anything else would prove our strength. No. She wants to be attacked. More Red Pill truth.

    I still think rating the alphaness of females the same way we rate that in men is the wrong metric. Alpha females like defeating and do defeat other females for the prize. A bad boy.

  15. @2039lkjsa

    but we can let someone know that something has already been addressed without denigrating them for having the temerity to speak up.

    Were this a random forum where you’d have to comb through thread after thread reading comment after comment and trying to thread a narrative together. This, however, is a blog. I lurked and read for a few months before my first comment here. To clearly broadcast not having done that bare minimum is to invite denigration with a gigantic “Kick me” sign in your own hand writing taped to your forehead.

    Finally, I note that – having been painted inaccurately so often by the very broad Feminazi brush of ‘all men are…,’ I find the ‘all women are…’ tactic equally unfortunate – and potentially just as filled with projection.

    When asserting that a particular behavior is due to innate biology, All Women (or Men, for that matter) Are Like That is a very safe thing to say. Yes, we are all aware of the concept of outliers; as BetaFemale is making it very clear though, most people like to think themselves outliers when they are in fact not. I personally am an outlier on intelligence, slightly above average in a couple other ways, but otherwise fall well within all other characteristics that might be attributed biologically to AMALT.

    However, when you’re trying to come up with general rules to help deal with the vast majority of one particular sex or the other (which is really what we’re doing here), then you tend to ignore outliers as either minor annoyances not worth consideration or unicorns not worth wishing for depending on your disposition toward them. It’s more a tactic of pragmatic rationality when deciding general strategies. Individuals will obviously require slight tailoring for their specifics, but the ground rules don’t really change that much.

  16. re: letting someone know.

    Rollo refers me and other men to prior posts all the time; it’s shorthand, and a good use of hypertext. Also is her “I have read countless entries from men” really compatible with your proposed major allowances for naiveté in her “temerity”?

  17. re: “something has already been addressed”

    “In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.”

  18. @zdr01dz

    I was disappointed with the actor selected to play Christian Grey in 50 Shades Of Grey. Bill Cosby would have been a better choice.

    Everyone knows he slept with his brother Russell, and was into provoking a good paddling, so maybe that works…

    (before you jump on me for missing your reference, I didn’t)

  19. @Sun Wukong

    …most people like to think themselves outliers when they are in fact not.

    Human existence is incompatible with the notion that you’re more like everyone else than you’d care to admit. If we as individuals were to truly accept just how similar and interchangeable we all are, we’d likely all turn suicidal very quickly. Because of this, the individual human mind celebrates and remembers differences and superiority far far more often than it recognizes common weaknesses with other humans.

    Whenever someone begins a conversation with you absolutely sure of their own superiority to a human stereotype, you can frankly just sit there and laugh at their pathetic attempt to appear able to think outside themselves.

  20. I am shocked and appalled. Mostly because it appears there was a discussion here…HERE of all places!.., that was centered around Twilight, and vampires.

  21. http://therationalmale.com/2013/10/23/not-all-women-arent-like-that/

    I’ve illustrated examples of feminine solipsism in many a post, but to really understand it, you have to read the responsive comments of women when they are presented with an objective observation, critical of women in General, how they solipsistically interpret that “attack”, personally reinterpret it in their personal experience, and then re-offer their interpretation as a generalized (i.e. universal) truth.

    It would appear Living Tree (or one very like her) has returned to RM.

  22. Ah. The ever present non-bitchy unicorn that you married seems like a not so nice lady. What do they say about lobbing ad hominem attacks? I mean maybe while getting the PhD even though she’s a lowly women with inferior worth to all the men in the field, she could’ve researched ‘ad hominem’ attack and concluded like all the rest of us that are actually educated that they are made by people with weak arguments.
    Please tell her from a feminist that I hope she enjoys that PhD that was bought and paid for by women that actually believe in equality. She wouldn’t have it were it not for women like me so she can have all the seats.

    Heh, the humor.

    As an academic, she is of course surrounded by feminists of both sexes, and she doesn’t hesitate to “weigh in” with her different perspective. Yes, smart, highly educated women who are not femdoms and who do not use their intellect as a kind of will to power over men (either in the collective or in the individual/relationship sense) do exist, and I happened to find one. Outlier among female academics, to be sure, but academics are outliers among humans as a whole — she reflects more accurately the “rest of womankind” than her co-workers do, which is probably why she relates to her (mostly female) students better. Funny how that works.

  23. Woman offers up easy lob as a pretend rhetorical question: “I mean what is the point of being a woman in your eyes?” to a bunch of pathetic bitter old men with small penises. What was the root cause?
    1) Her vanity.
    2) Her insanity.
    3) Her inanity.
    Pick the single one which best fits the scenario.

  24. Underappreciated factoid: the butch partner almost always has a higher sex drive than the femme but instead/because of that, the butch inevitably spends all their sexy time sexually pleasing the femme partner, and tends to have to get her own self off.

  25. @novaseeker

    I haven’t followed up on comments since my last post, so if your wife has said something vitriolic back to me, I have no idea what it is. I did, however, develop a theory about your wife that I would like to share with the group.

    Your wife is a feminist. Now, follow this logic boys because it’s good stuff. Your wife has taken very specific actions, i.e. pursuing a post graduate degree in a specific field, that indicate that she does not believe women are inherently inferior to men. A PhD is the pinnacle of education, so we can deduce from her actions that she believes herself to be valuable enough to expend considerable resources to advance herself (an inherently self-aggrandizing desire that indicates a high perception of self worth). Now, it is established that getting a degree is absolutely and unequivocally an action that a woman with a high view of herself would take, so it would logically follow that equalitarianism would be a belief that she would have to have. A given, if you will. Does she believe herself, a future doctor, to be inferior to an uneducated, unskilled laborer? I think you know the answer is no, even if you don’t want to believe it. And in order to believe that women do not deserve equal rights, she must believe that all women are inferior to all men – otherwise not granting rights to human beings makes no sense.

    Now we will examine why there is dissonance in the words she speaks, i.e., I agree with the manosphere and think equalitarianism and equal rights are not necessary, with her clearly feminist actions, i.e., I think I am worthy of a PhD which an inferior woman before equal rights would not have been able to earn. My supposition is that at some point long ago, she decided that alpha males gave her the tingles, and subconsciously, she began seeking out groups of these men to associate herself with. Upon finding the “manosphere” and “Red Pill” theory, she was given a road map to pleasing one of these alpha males by giving them a false sense of superiority over her, which she believes makes them more attracted to her. She had an innate desire to become the popular, cool girl in a group full of men that told her exactly how to act in order to gain their respect and trust, and she has manipulated you into believing that she believes she is inferior to you and not deserving of equal rights, but deep down, she is a feminist. She doesn’t know it consciously….yet, but her actions prove unequivocally that she is for equal rights. Women who are not for equality do not get PhD’s or do so much to directly benefit from that which they pretend to hate. Wake up, dude. Your girl’s playing you. I know why she got pissy in her first response to me, and it’s because she knows I know she’s full of shit. Now honey, you won’t come clean, but just know that I see you.

    *Drops mic*

    Be careful before you respond. This reasoning that I’ve used is carefully cultivated from a source you all know and trust….think hard.

  26. Hrm, Actually, the “burden” of choice precludes idealistic love. Nature has essentially arranged itself around women being the selector when it comes to sexual relations and reproduction. Because women are making a selection, rather than appreciating what is available, their judgement on their selection (much like any consumer) is constant and undermines any possibility of appreciating what they chose merely for it’s existence.

    Natural human behavior works like this. You don’t walk into a store full of suits, look around, pick one you like, get it tailored, and walk out of there loving the suit simply for existing. No, you love it because you picked it out, and you have convinced yourself (in some ways) that it best complements and makes you look good. This is much the same mindset women have about men. They aren’t capable of idealistic love, but they are capable of loving a man for how well they feel they picked.

    Because men are the ones being “selected”, a woman “picking” them is like being picked for a game of basketball on the playground. No one wants to be picked last (be the consolation prize), and the ones picked first are *always* going to feel better about themselves. The mindset is completely different, the person who is picked is going to be grateful and appreciative to anyone who picked them first and stuck with them. This leads to a form of love that is wholly outgoing and appreciative, it comes from a sense of already having been honored by being picked.

  27. @elitistthinkingfemale

    Be careful before you respond. This reasoning that I’ve used is carefully cultivated from a source you all know and trust….think hard.

    I’ve not read Karl Marx, and no, I don’t really trust him.

    Your words are so filled to the brim with “inferior” “superior” nonsense that it’s a wonder how you go about your day dealing with people. Had it ever occurred to you how close to equal people could be, and still be best suited for different roles, or do you regard all jobs as being on some kind of female-interpreted heirarchy?

    Do you go about your day, scoffing at people who collect garbage, run street sweepers or snowplows, or direct traffic? It really sounds like you do. It’s actually quite disgusting to see you bare your intellect in this way, it reveals quite a lot as to why you don’t understand what is discussed here.

  28. @Rollo

    “Yep, it’s an outlier, nothing to see here…” Like me, right? I need to start putting /s after some of the things I say so you can tell when I’m being sarcastic. Apparently, my tone isn’t conveying it.

  29. Ok I should not have expected anyone was going to get it, even though I DID go out of my way to give you a serious hint at the end.

    The reasoning I used to make these conclusions about Dr. Nova is the same reasoning you use to justify your beliefs about women. Now that I’ve spelled it out, the only thing that I can tell you is that if you think I’m really off base, you should probably examine your own beliefs since my reasoning is a reflection of the logic used every day in every single post on this blog.

  30. Jesus Christ “Alpha”… You vomit that kind of nonsense, and you honestly believed you were throwing our own logic back at us? At this point I’m starting to wonder if english is a second language for you, because your previous post was soo off base that humor was the appropriate response.

  31. Do you remember standardized assessments of reading comprehension that included too many ambiguous “pick the best answer” and “pick the best title” types of questions? I always could come up with a better answer and a better title. Since my literary professor ex-wife helped design some of them, I can assure you that your suspicions were correct: always some of these questions, in *any* large standardized assessment, were included specifically to ensure that the smartest kids would get something wrong, to burst their bubble. Literally “the best answer” was selected ex post facto to ensure that the minimum number of kids would get a perfect score who got everything *else* correct.

    It’s almost amusing the lengths that those sorts of people will go to to try to drag others down.

  32. And would like to add that I do believe that I’m right about it, too.

    But Jeremy #2, I will respond to your questions.

    You’ve read Rollo Tomassi, have you not? That’s where I got the logic.

    You just don’t like it because I pointed out that it’s unlikely that a woman with a PhD actually believe she is inferior to an unskilled laborer. Where are we at with the “assembling hard truths” mumbo jumbo?

    Even if I say what is true that I don’t go around thinking I’m superior to all of these other people, you’re not going to believe it, and I’m not going to waste my time doing it. Believe what you want. I’m using your logic to draw conclusions about this woman, whose actions contradict her words.

    Yes, people CAN be suited for different roles. That has 100% of nothing to do with a woman who does not support equal rights. There is nothing worse than an “anti-feminist” woman, except an “anti-feminist” woman that benefits from feminism every single fucking day and has no problem pedestalizing herself while denying the same rights to other women. FUCK that.

    If you think I was insulting unskilled laborers, which is what it seems like is pissing you off about what I said, I wasn’t. I was making a point that someone with a PhD is not going to think of herself as inferior to an unskilled laborer with no education, which you clearly don’t get. I’m not saying she’s SUPERIOR to him. I’m saying there’s no way she thinks she’s inferior to him just because she has a vagina.

    It’s amazing how I can use the reasoning YOU use to justify your treatment of women in a different scenario, and you react so negatively to it but you can’t understand why perhaps TRP is not a universal truth for all women, even though you believe it to be.

  33. “Jesus Christ “Alpha”… You vomit that kind of nonsense, and you honestly believed you were throwing our own logic back at us?”

    Um…I don’t know exactly how I need to spell it out for you for you to understand. Jesus. Feminism = Women desiring to be treated like shit. That’s all I’m going to do for you. If you still can’t get it after that, it will seriously take far too long for me to piece it together for you. Just give up.

    You’re just saying it’s not the same logic because you don’t want to admit that it is. That’s what I actually think. It’s exactly the same logic.

  34. re: “she was given a road map to pleasing one of these alpha males by giving them a false sense of superiority over her, which she believes makes them more attracted to her.”

    Honey, please. Females throw themselves under the alpha’s juggernaut and are plain happy their little greasy spot eases his way a little.

    You aren’t just pretending; you really really don’t understand this, do you?

  35. Alpha…

    Women earned PhDs… BEFORE THEY HAD EQUAL RIGHTS.

    So please, drop this nonsense you have. For Christs sake, we had women working as federal judges in the United States before most University’s in this country allowed women in, before the term feminism was even coined for fucks sake. So all this bullshit you have about “needing to believe in equal rights”, or “being feminine on the inside” is total horseshit. The world of men works on one principle, and has always worked on one principle.. MERIT. Women who want to MERIT being honored EARNED a what they were seeking. People who want to challenge themselves do so, people who do not, or cannot challenge themselves do not. Men do not judge other men as inferior or superior except in specific fields where they merit such judgement. You would be wise, if you honestly are going to attempt to speak to men in their own world, to at least understand the basics.

    I hesitate to think what hell you’re putting any SO with a penis through.

  36. “Women earned PhDs… BEFORE THEY HAD EQUAL RIGHTS.” And that affects my argument in what way? It doesn’t matter that they did. Unless you can testify to their MINDSET about their own value and whether THEY believed THEY deserved equal rights, that’s not relevant. This is about whether this woman believes she deserves equal rights. You will have to find a doctor who believes women are inferior to men for genitalia alone in order to make a counter argument.

    “Women who want to MERIT being honored EARNED a what they were seeking.” Evaluating women based on merit necessitates a belief that they are capable of that merit, which indicates a core belief in egalitarianism.

    “Men do not judge other men as inferior or superior except in specific fields where they merit such judgement.” This is complete bullshit. Like complete and utter horseshit of the highest order.

    I am so entertained that you all are fighting your own logic though. I knew this was going to be amusing.

    “I hesitate to think what hell you’re putting any SO with a penis through.” More than you could handle. For sure. He actually has to think sometimes when I’m in the room because I don’t roll over like a dog for him.

  37. And also, you will need to prove that the majority of women who earn PhDs believe that women don’t deserve equal rights, as outliers are dismissible on the grounds that they do not represent the majority.

  38. Alphafool said:

    And that affects my argument in what way?

    You’re either not serious, or you’re retarded, or you’re drunk. You just vomited out a bunch of nonsense over how Nova’s wife *must* think herself to not be inferior, to think herself a feminist, in order to pursue a PhD. I just gave you an ironclad example of how and why an individual woman who isn’t so blinded by Social-Marxist ideology might not care who or what she was inferior/superior to but might instead just want to challenge herself in a unique way, but the rules and merits of the world of men. But you can’t see it, because to your mind, the world operates on principles of “superior” or “inferior” rather than “MERIT”.

    Arguing with you is like trying to have sex with jello. It’s entertaining for about 2 seconds, and then someone who might think less of you walks in on it.

  39. @”AF” —

    Well, I have to say that you couldn’t be more wrong than you are, but, then again, there is always asymptotic stupidity to consider, and how far down the curve … interesting.

    Anyway, you’re entertaining purely for amusement. I recognize you in my *ex* wife. She, unlike you, isn’t interested in being the dominant in her relationship(s), but is one anyway. But, I found someone better, fancy that. She may even show up to respond herself (I’ve given her the green light for that, if she wants to use it), but in any case, your assessment of things is typical of your type, and also the reason why I am NOT with a woman of your type. And, frankly, that’s very reassuring to both she and I.

  40. Jeremy #2 my assertion goes to her mindset, not to whether PhD’s were earned by women before or after equal rights were granted. Are you slow or can you TRY to wrap your mind around that simple fact?

    Also again, if you disagree with my logic and would like to insult me for it, please go find the nearest mirror and scream at it since for the last fucking time, this is your logic on display.

  41. And also, you will need to prove that the majority of women who earn PhDs believe that women don’t deserve equal rights, as outliers are dismissible on the grounds that they do not represent the majority.

    Most probably do. My fiancee is an outlier (didn’t I *say* that already? Oh, that was a different writer for your account … sorry). Clear enough. Is the discussion that “most female PhDs believe like my fiancee”, because if that is the discussion the answer is “no”, which is why she is, in fact, precious because of rarity.

    However, the broader issue on “outliers” is how much of an outlier *you* are among women as a whole. Yes, there are more of your type among PhDs and lawyers than there are among women as a whole, but so what? You’re still an outlier. And the reason isn’t your belief in “equal rights”. It’s your satisfaction at being relationship-dominant. That is the outlier here. You keep moving the goal posts back towards rights, when the real outlierish aspect of you is the fact that you are a female who wants to be relationship dominant in an overt way. That’s the most outlier thing in this thread, and far more outlierish than my fiancee’s views as compared with other female PhDs.

  42. Novaseeker,

    I had a larger point to make, which, clearly, was a bit too abstract for the readers here to be able to piece it together without a road map. We can argue about your wife all day long. In the end if you believe her that’s whatever. Do what you want. There’s definite cognitive dissonance in her word and actions, but you can do whatever mental gymnastics you need to to pretend it’s completely rational to benefit from feminism while you pretend to hate it.

    God I don’t want to listen to the psychobabble bullshit your wife is no doubt going to spew to justify her belief that SHE deserves access to the highest education available, but other simpleton women, well not them. Just her because she’s a special snowflake. Now women that want to, you know, not die at the hands of men, those bitches are just feminists out to hold down “the man.”

    Glad you gave her permission though. Thanks for that.

  43. Do you guys actually believe I have a different writer for my account? Hahahahahaha. I’m fucking tickled that you think that because I’m just that good. Nope still me. We alpha females are not a dime a dozen, you know. Wherever would I find another person to share my amazing handle?

  44. AlphaFemale,

    I am Novaseeker’s fiancée (as he said, we are not married yet). I previously commented on some blogs in the “manosphere” as Learner (though not on this blog) but I kinda like “Dr. Nova” so I am going to go with that.

    Since you have offered your little theory about me I would just like to make a few points.
    1. The idea that you or some other feminist “paved the way” for me to earn my PhD is laughable. First because women could and did earn doctoral degrees before feminism, and secondly because I bet I am at least 10 years your senior … You didn’t pave the way to jack for me. I earned my degreesthrough my own hard work and merit, period.
    2. The only person in this thread who has said I think myself lowly or inferior to all men is you. Whenever I consider myself in comparison to others my interest is what the reality of the situation is. I acknowledge the reality that I am more intelligent than many people, male and female alike, but I also recognize that on average men are smarter than women…., because both of those facts are objective reality. I also acknowledge that I am less suited to leadership than many other people because of my skills and nature…. Again, objective reality. We scientists tend to prefer objective reality over rhetoric.
    3. Please note that neither Novaseeker or I consider me to be of lesser value than him. Now, in many ways he is superior to me. He is stronger, wiser, steadier, and in many ways smarter than me. This does not mean either of us regard me as lowly or inferior to all men, or even inferior in value to him. It simply means I was very blessed that he chose me and am very happy to submit to his leadership in our relationship.

    Can I clarify anything else for you?

  45. @Rollo I don’t drink. Which part of your logic do you disagree with? You haven’t weighed in on my astute analysis about Dr. Nova.

  46. Alphafemaleperson,
    “God I don’t want to listen to the psychobabble bullshit your wife is no doubt going to spew to justify her belief that SHE deserves access to the highest education available, but other simpleton women, well not them. Just her because she’s a special snowflake.”

    Ok, according to you, one minute I think I am lowly and the next I think I am a special snowflake…. Which is it? And for the record I support access to the highest level education available for all people based on their abilities. I do not support lowering standards so everyone can have a degree, then tgey become meaningless…. Trophies for everyone! However, I also acknowledge that attaining the highest degree you are capable of may not be the best choice for many people, male and female alike. There are other things to consider. For example, I did not pursue my PhD until I was past optimal childbearing range because that is a ton of effort, time and money (by the way where is what feminists supposedly paid for my degree ’cause I still have some loans that need to be paid) to spend on something like a PhD when I would have preferred investing myself in caring for my children. Life is full of choices. Despite what you may have been told, you cannot have it all.

    I need to go to sleep now but please feel free to respond and I will see if I can come up with some more good psychobabble bullshit in the morning.

    Now women that want to, you know, not die at the hands of men, those bitches are just feminists out to hold down “the man.”

  47. Hello Dr. Nova. Thanks for joining in. I would first like to preface my reply by saying that my analysis of you is satirical and is meant to showcase the flawed logic used by RP men to justify treating women badly “because they really want it.” I do actually wonder though if my theory is valid because it has certainly touched a nerve.

    1. The idea that you think you would have access to more than basic reading and writing without feminism is what’s laughable. Historically, women having access to education beyond the basics was unusual and was only granted to women if the men were not in need of the resources. So what you are saying is that POSSIBLY you would have been able to get a PhD without equal rights, and you are fine with that even though other women wouldn’t have access. Because, well, you are a special snowflake, amirite? I didn’t say I personally paved the way. I said people like me paved the way, i.e. women that believe in equality. Surely you know the difference between “I” and “people like me.”

    2. Your fiancé told me point blank that you do not support egalitarianism, did he not? Egalitarianism is a belief that women deserve equal rights. A belief that women do not deserve equal rights means that you believe women are inferior to men. Do not even ATTEMPT to do this mental gymnastics with me because we both know it’s bullshit. You either state the truth, which is that you do believe that women are inferior to ALL MEN and do not deserve equal rights, or you believe they are not inferior (or at the very least should be evaluated on a case by case basis) and deserve equal rights. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE for you to have it any other way and hold on to even a modicum of rationality, so you pick. You tell me what you think.

    “I acknowledge the reality that I am more intelligent than many people, male and female alike, but I also recognize that on average men are smarter than women….” I would just like to point out that the special snowflake syndrome is on full display here, as I was 100% positive it would be. “I am a special snowflake and smarter than most men and women, but MOST women are less intelligent than all men.” You are not a special snowflake. I’m more intelligent than most as well. Does that mean I deserve access to rights and resources that other women aren’t simply because I was born a certain way? Actually, why am I phrasing it that way as if you would come to your senses and say “no! of course that doesn’t make sense!” That’s exactly how you think.

    NEWSFLASH Dr. Nova, You are not more deserving of rights or more competent just because you were innately born with a higher IQ. Lots of women are born that way. To hear the way you tell it, you would have all women without equal rights so that you could submit to your fiancé and feel all happy and lucky inside.

    My husband’s question for you: since you are pursuing your doctorate, do you have a job where you are in a leadership role? Would you feel comfortable in a leadership role above a man?

    3. Great. Glad you all are happy.

  48. “Ok, according to you, one minute I think I am lowly and the next I think I am a special snowflake…. Which is it?”

    Well going with my theory, you actually believe you are of high value. I amended my belief that you think you’re lowly when I decided you were a feminist. 😉

    “And for the record I support access to the highest level education available for all people based on their abilities.”

    Then you support equal rights, as I KNEW you really would.

    “(by the way where is what feminists supposedly paid for my degree ’cause I still have some loans that need to be paid)” I knew you were going to say that. Blood, sweat, and tears is what they paid in. No refunds or exchanges.

    “Despite what you may have been told, you cannot have it all.” What are you considering “it all?”

    ‘Now women that want to, you know, not die at the hands of men, those bitches are just feminists out to hold down “the man.”’ You could make this your signature.

  49. AF,

    Staying at a friends house tonight and only have my phone to work with so I am going to address one point at a time (not a fan of commenting from my phone).
    “1. The idea that you think you would have access to more than basic reading and writing without feminism is what’s laughable. Historically, women having access to education beyond the basics was unusual and was only granted to women if the men were not in need of the resources. So what you are saying is that POSSIBLY you would have been able to get a PhD without equal rights, and you are fine with that even though other women wouldn’t have access. Because, well, you are a special snowflake, ”

    Actually historically most men didn’t have access to more than basic education either, but gradually over time that has changed. The idea that without feminism that women would not have the right to education is an assumption, a questionable correlation if you will. The “rights”of women have changed over the millennia long before feminism and I believe they could well have continued to grow without it, and likely to better end. As I already said, I am in favor of all people having access to education they are qualified to engage in by their cognitive abilities, but that consideration should be given to their life and aims as a whole.

    “I didn’t say I personally paved the way. I said people like me paved the way, i.e. women that believe in equality. Surely you know the difference between “I” and “people like me.”
    So that addresses what I said about my being older than you… What about the rest…. Merit and all that ?

  50. Dr. Nova,

    Now hang on a minute. We’re getting side tracked on a tangential issue. The question is whether or not you believe in equal rights, not whether feminism is definitively the sole path to women achieving equal rights. Equalitarianism means “of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.” Now, your fiancé believes that you do not believe in equal rights, but you are telling me you do believe in equal rights. I don’t know which one of you is right, but I am sure you will elucidate for me so I can understand what you actually believe.

    Of course “Feminism” proper is not the ONLY way that women could’ve acquired rights. That’s like saying there’s one path to the sun. However, feminism IS the way you were granted rights. We can create false theoretical scenarios and speculate as to whether it could’ve been different, and the answer will always be yes, it could have been different; however, your true reality is that feminism is the reason you were granted rights. Not some hypothetical possibility that didn’t occur. Let’s stick to the facts while we discuss how feminism granted you the rights that you enjoy which provide you unfettered access to the highest forms of education in the world.

    “I am in favor of all people having access to education they are qualified to engage in by their cognitive abilities, but that consideration should be given to their life and aims as a whole.” This is a frightening mindset. What exactly do you propose we do to ascertain which children have “cognitive abilities” that you subjectively deem to make them worthy of pursuing an education? And what do you mean consideration should be given to their life and aims as a whole? 5 year olds don’t have ‘aims as a whole,’ which is when kids start school.

    “What about the rest…. Merit and all that ?” – What about merit?

    Garry, Interesting because I’ve been arguing with these men for the better part of 2 days, but now that another woman has entered the conversation, we’re “bickering.” Sexist language always irks me. I’ll call it oaf blathering when you and the other men start yapping about whichever idiotic thing you think up next.

  51. When Nova said I did not support egalitarianism he was correct. I consider myself a complementarian. I believe men and women are of equal value but are fundamentally different and naturally more suited to some roles than others. I don’t wish to take away anyone’s rights, I simply think people should to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. For example, if a woman wants a high powered career that is a choice she is free to make. That choice may limit her in other ways however and I would question her insistence that she should be able to have it all … Life doesn’t work like that for anyone. We all have our choices to make.

    ” I would just like to point out that the special snowflake syndrome is on full display here, as I was 100% positive it would be. “I am a special snowflake and smarter than most men and women, but MOST women are less intelligent than all men.”

    Reading comprehension please, I did not say most men are more intelligent than all women. I didn’t say it because it isn’t true. I stated 2 statistical facts. 1. I am smarter than most people (doesn’t make me better than them, just more intelligent). 2. Men on average are smarter than women. This is a statistical fact, especially at the right side of the bell curve where men outnumber women 2:1.

    “Does that mean I deserve access to rights and resources that other women aren’t simply because I was born a certain way? Actually, why am I phrasing it that way as if you would come to your senses and say “no! of course that doesn’t make sense!” That’s exactly how you think.””

    Should abilities like intelligence effect the access people have to resources like education? Absolutely. In fact that is how much of the world operates today. Would you encourage someone with an IQ of 88 to pursue a PhD in astrophysics? I wouldn’t . It is setting them up for failure. There are many other things they could do that would leave them happier. For example, It does no good to coddle a less capable student through coursework as a nurse or physical therapist if they are unable to pass the national exam to become registered or certified. Tens of thousands of dollars spent in pursuit of an unobtainable goal. Put another way, do you want the person operating on you after a car accident to be someone who did not get through medical school on their merit but rather because it was their “right” to have a medical degree?

    I never said I was in any way better than someone who was less intelligent than me…I am simply different and better suited to some things than others … Like most people.

    I completed my PhD several years ago now. As an academic, I am in a position of authority over my students male and female and am fine with that. I mentor junior faculty as well and enjoy that. I have no desire to be in leadership beyond that at work.

    You sure do like to put words in my mouth. I am no feminist. I believe in merit which is not a feminist tenant. Feminists say they believe in “equality”. Equality means everyone treated exactly the same, I am not in favor of that. We are not all the same, we are different. Not of different value but of different talents and abilities.

    By having it all I mean having a high powered career, children, the perfect husband, etc.

    Regarding your quote I pushed to the bottom of my comment and didn’t see…. I have no idea what you are trying to say there so, no, not adopting it as my signature. Who is taking about women dying at the hands of men?

  52. The thing about special snowflakes is that their specialness results from special nurturing conditions. But every slushball is the same slushball.

  53. AF,

    Do you not understand that things like college admissions requirements (certain grades or standardized test scores) are used all the time in education to admit and reject students access to education all the time all over the world? Seriously….. This cannot come as a shock to you. We were talking about access to graduate education, not 5 year olds for crying out loud.

  54. I apologize Rollo if I high jacked your thread. I will stop responding to her if your prefer (your blog and all).

  55. @Jeremy
    Women earned PhDs… BEFORE THEY HAD EQUAL RIGHTS.

    Confirmed for truth by one of my heroes:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

    ^^^^^^^^
    She’s what happens when you don’t wine about “the patriarchy” and just go do something productive for mankind because you want to. That’s what an alpha female looks like.

  56. Jeremy – “Do you go about your day, scoffing at people who collect garbage, run street sweepers or snowplows, or direct traffic? It really sounds like you do.”

    And this illustrates the problem with enlightened educated feminist women, and men. The strange notion that education = wisdom and thus superiority. As though an MA in gender studies, communications,or psychology makes the world a better place.

    One thing I have learned is that education is not indicative of anything other than the ability to navigate the process. Some of the smartest people I know never completed high school. These are the men that ensure the lights turn on and the toilets flush. These are the men who make civilization function, and defend it from outside threats. These are the men who build and assemble the tools the educated use to explore the world. The hidden, the invisible, and the ignored men, and even women, who will always be inferior in rank and status in the eyes of the feminist elite.

    The evil inherent in Marxism and feminism is the notion that the workers and peasants are stupid. Too stupid to live without the benevolent despotism of their over educated navel gazing betters like Alphafemale. The flaw of this philosophy is the self promoting belief that we, humanity, can’t live without them when really the reverse is true. The truth is the elites can’t live without the proles. After all who would pick up the trash? Grow the food? Or extact the resources? The elites can only be elite by virtue of the proles they smugly compare themselves to.

    Believe me humanity woud survive just fine if the educated elite vanished tomorrow, whie if the proles disappeared it would the end of civilization if not humanity.

  57. “I don’t wish to take away anyone’s rights” Do you believe they should have been granted in the first place?

    “For example, if a woman wants a high powered career that is a choice she is free to make. ” — because of feminism.

    “1. I am smarter than most people (doesn’t make me better than them, just more intelligent). 2. Men on average are smarter than women. This is a statistical fact, especially at the right side of the bell curve where men outnumber women 2:1.”

    What measure are you using to justify a belief that most men are smarter than most women, and even that you are more intelligent than most people? Are we using IQ, education levels, accomplishments, etc.? I assume it must be some biological measure, but it’s probably unreliable at best. Many psychologists contend that innate intelligence cannot be accurately quantitatively measured. So there’s that.

    “A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.” <— WebMD

    "Would you encourage someone with an IQ of 88 to pursue a PhD in astrophysics? I wouldn’t . It is setting them up for failure."

    Most people don't get PhD's..that's not the point. I do think all people should have access to basic education, regardless of ability. Providing them with anything less would LITERALLY, not metaphorically, set them up for failure.

    "Put another way, do you want the person operating on you after a car accident to be someone who did not get through medical school on their merit but rather because it was their “right” to have a medical degree?"

    I'm interested to know more about all of these unintelligent, incompetent people that are going through medical school due to equalitarianism. Point out a few. Are you speaking of hypotheticals which haven't actually happened again? Likely.

    "I never said I was in any way better than someone who was less intelligent than me…I am simply different and better suited to some things than others … Like most people."

    Ok you seem to think I am saying that everyone should get a PhD. That's not what I'm saying, but basic education? Yes. That's what everyone should have, and everyone DIDN'T have it before the feminist movement. You seem to think that men were also just simply not able to access schooling like women were, and no, you are convoluting the issue and trying to equate two things that are dissimilar. Women were denied it based on gender ALONE. That is problematic, and should be especially to someone like you that is competent enough to earn that level of education.

    "I believe in merit which is not a feminist tenant." Yes it is. You just don't know what feminism actually is. You know what some men have perverted it into. You know the feminazi version, not the real version.

    "Who is taking about women dying at the hands of men?" Feminists are! Jesus H. Christ, Dr. I need you to learn about what feminism is fighting for. Approximately 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence in their lifetime in the US. Every 107 seconds, another person will be raped or sexually assaulted in the US. There are cultures in existence where women are treated like property and are not even allowed to walk down the street without a male relative – where they are stoned to death for being gang raped! The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about speaks to how little you actually know about feminism and how much you think it's about oppressing men (um lol), when really it's about giving women EQUAL human rights and you know, helping them live and dumb stuff like that. The petty feminist crap you hear peddled about is just women commenting on insignificant situations that have stemmed from the male dominated power structure. They are not representative of the true cause that women fight for as feminists.

  58. @Dr Nova

    “We were talking about access to graduate education, not 5 year olds for crying out loud.” No we were talking about you having ACCESS to education. I never once said that I wanted all people to be able to get PhD’s. It’s ridiculous that this miscommunication between us has taken up this much time. To be clear, I do not under any circumstances believe that people should just be handed a PhD for existing on earth. I am saying people should have equal ACCESS to education, which you have because of feminism (which you also ironically claim to dislike on principle).

  59. Just as a PSA, I am not an elitist, nor am I even a leftist. I am a libertarian leaning independent, and I do not think I’m “better” than people that do hard work but don’t have my education. I mean, I realize that ad hominem attacks and attempting to position yourself as superior because you respect “smart people” who “don’t have an education” makes you feel justified to totally disregard the way I threw your shitty logic right back at you, but the way you men continue to argue about it is really starting to concern me.

    Do you understand I used Rollo’s logic to form my post? I know some of you must. That’s why I’m hearing crickets other than personal attacks on my character, which might I remind you, none of you people know anything about.

    No long winded rants about why you are sooooo much better than an “elitist” woman like me (irony..hypocrisy..can you guys pick a different tune? This one’s been on repeat too long.) are going to change the fact that you know your logic is flawed otherwise what I said about Dr. Nova wouldn’t have hit such a nerve with you.

  60. One time we were visiting my little brother and his wife, and his in laws were over for a cookout. He had an old horseshoe court haphazardly laid out near the back fence, mismatched horseshoes, crooked stakes, rutted yard, dog poop, etc. As was his wont he had already gotten drunk off the first two beers, but wasn’t getting much drunker as he continued steadily. My oldest daughter thought he was cool.

    The dad styled himself some kind of horseshoe player, in shorts and dress shoes. He complained about the stakes, couldn’t walk his throw right, etc. We mocked his anxienty until he failed enough, then changed the game to a sort of horseshoe golf, for my brother, daughter, and me. One player got to pick a horseshoe location to affix the new stake location, using the horseshoe as a hammer, and then had to throw towards the old stake location for scoring.

    Eventually the stakes got pretty wide apart, maybe 150 ft, maybe more, and he and I were hurling the horseshoes as hard as we could overhand, sort of at each other, ducking and laughing while being scolded by the womenfolk.

  61. “There are cultures in existence where women are treated like property and are not even allowed to walk down the street without a male relative – where they are stoned to death for being gang raped!”

    So stop yelling at us about it, we’re not doing it. Go over there and fix it yourself. You’re as good as any man..

  62. re: equal access.

    You don’t mean equal access in everything. For example you don’t mean every man gets equal access to sex. Who gets to decide which things are equal? Who gets to decide what equal is? Who gets to decide who gets to decide?

  63. D-man, You certainly have a lot of confidence in me. Appreciate it. However, it’s kinda hard to make strides with leadership when they think you should be stoned to death bc like genitals and stuff.

    Jf12, Do you really require a response as to why equal access to education is different than equal access to sex?

    Not to mention that you have access to sex. Go get a prostitute if you can’t close the deal.

  64. When I realize in a discussion that there are no minds open to being changed, I stop wasting my time.

    You guys have wasted a lot of time today. On both sides.

  65. We are now past 700 and the vomitus continues. How about declaring alfalfa the winner and going home. If it makes you feel better you can declare her the loser and do the same.

  66. “Basically, women are in full control of human evolution, and always will be.”

    This idea may not be correct, at least for the majority of the past human and proto-human history. Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with, and not the other way around for most of human history? I believe that most of the mating that took place may in fact be by the more dominant and powerful men selecting the women. Most mating occurred primarily through force (rape or arranged pairing or marriages as human societies became more organized or civilized). The women who submitted to the powerful man for procreating therefore survived and lived to procreate. This behavior over eons of history imprinted their mark into the hard-wiring of women’s brains – women viscerally desire dominant and powerful men, and therefore a mans’ looks (and height) are not the primary attributes that women find desirable in a man. A man can be “ugly” and short, but as long as he is strong and dominant (both in behavior and in having a muscular physique), he can still get the woman that desires him and finds him attractive, since this is what most mattered in the past for human mating behavior.

    I find it hard to believe that a relatively delicate, weak female human (or proto-human and early human) could just freely select the man that she procreated with during much of human history, prior to the advent of civilized human societies. It was the strong and dominant male that took control that procreated the most. Essentially I think it has been men that have been in control of human evolution in the past.

    Now that women indeed do the selecting, at least in the modern societies in the western industrialized countries, they may have more control of evolution. But their ancient, and deelpy-ingrained instinctive behavior would no doubt affect their choice in a man in modern times.

  67. re: “Do you really require a response as to why equal access to education is different than equal access to sex?”

    Yes.

    You have access to education, to jobs, to cute shoes. Ain’t my fault if you can’t close the deal.

  68. re: “Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with”?

    Yes. The rapers and pillagers weren’t selective.

  69. AF,

    I don’t always think clearly when I am tired and yesterday was a long day, but I think this morning I am understanding better. You are one of these people who equates any good or benefit to women with feminism and any thing that you think hurts women with anti-feminism. Thus, if a woman in any way succeeds (ie, earns a PhD) she is beholden to feminism, and if a woman suffers (physical violence etc) it is the fault of those who are against feminism. I believe that is what you call a logical fallacy. Since you are “actually educated” I will leave you to figure out which ones. Before you read anything from me you were already declaring it psychobabble bullshit and telling me in your arguments that I could not possibly disagree with you. You are stuck in that little box and cannot comprehend anything outside of it. The world isn’t that simple.

    Ok, regarding intelligence; I am referring to the best measure of intelligence we have (not saying it is perfect, just doing what scientists do which is to use the best available measure) which is IQ. Look at the IQ bell curve and you will see what I referred to on the right side. I must say I find it funny you critique IQ as a measure then use “WEB MD” as a source.

    As to the rest of your claims where you dragged out gang rapes and accused me of conflating issues…. See my first paragraph.

  70. re: “I believe that is what you call a logical fallacy.”

    “Some humans are more equal than others.” Actually it’s a lot of types of fallacies all rolled together, and smoldering poorly. The broadest outline of her argument is a deifinitional fallacy and moralistic fallacy combined with a moving goalpost fallacy combined with, of course, begging the question. “If it’s what I say is good for women despite being bad for men, then it’s good for men, because equality.”

    “Even if you have to break a few eggs, you’re not really breaking any eggs because you’re making an omelette.”

  71. I would first like to preface my reply by saying that my analysis of you is satirical and is meant to showcase the flawed logic used by RP men to justify treating women badly “because they really want it.”

    Alfalfa fails to understand that women’s amygdalas respond to jerks even though their cortices abhor jerks. Jerks = more masculine mates. Which is why during courtship & sex women’s amygdalas take control from women’s cortices. If the cortisol level in the amydala gets too high, then the amydala relinquishes control back to the cortex.

    Alfalfa argues that ethics triumphs over or should triumph over biology.

    Do I win the alliteration prize? Maybe the perception prize?

    * cortices; plural of cortex

  72. The sock puppets aren’t regular readers, but they’re experts on Dread:

    Suzy explains that she has recently been administered “dread game” by her “alpha” partner.

  73. “re: “Is it really accurate to think that women were the selectors of men who they had children with”?

    Yes. The rapers and pillagers weren’t selective.”

    It’s true I think that the men may not have been selective regarding women, but the men were selective in a way among themselves – the stronger men beating out the weaker men in getting a chance at procreation with the women. Women were just at the mercy and vulnerable to any man in general, it’s just that the stronger/dominant men won. The women had no choice on selection in the matter – so the women were not doing any selecting among the men in actuality.

    The rapers and pillagers were most probably predominantly the most strong and dominant men.

    So I still think it is that the men that were the driving force for evolution for the majority of human history, albeit via self-selection of the men among the broader population of men, which included the weaker men. Most of the women were pillaged and raped, but predominately by the more dominant and stronger men which were a smaller fraction of the male population. The women did not do any selecting for the most part, they were at the mercy of all men and in particular the stronger/dominant men.

    The idea that females could just freely pick and choose which man they wanted to procreate with during ancient history is inaccurate I think. Why is it that women have this visceral desire for dominant and strong men? What about the seemingly predominance of rape fantasies among women (with strong/dominant men which they find attractive)? The ancient women who were amenable to this behavior survived and procreated.

  74. I think AF is like the Obama of feminism: “you didn’t build that!”. As if the ONLY way a woman could ever succeed at something/anything is through feminism as we know it today.

    Is it that hard to believe some of us are all for equal rights, but not as implemented today? And frankly, I don’t want to hear shit about equal rights until all family court law is chucked and rebuilt from scratch. I have no problem with equal rights as long as it comes with equal responsibility. What we have is UNequal rights for everyone and responsibility for some. And frankly, seeing the type of people that represent the modern feminist movement, I don’t want any of them involved in the process to fix our broken laws.

  75. It’s always the same ol’.

    I haven’t read all the bs that’s been stated here by some random troll, but it never stopped fascinating me, how it never fails to trigger a lot of male commenters to try to discuss logically with her. Which results in a bazillion comments leading the mostly fruitful discussions astray.
    I value that Rollo’s comment section is not moderated but these cases are just annoying. How can you discuss scientific results with answers like: “I think that fe/fi theory is wrong, here is my own theory…”
    It’s the typical female discussion style that can never be won by logical arguments. Period.
    I mean just have a look what it came to in statements like, paraphrasing, IQ is not a good concept to measure how smart a person is. Seriously?

    Alphafemale, the following is not an ad hominem attack. You are or willl be miserable beneath that empowered shell you built for yourself as long as you deny your true positive female nature by trying to be like or better than men. It’s not being subjugated, if you think I might be that stupid.
    And no, straight men usually don’t like being in a relationship with another man who’s competitive as hell to overcompensate his own low self-esteem.

  76. I feel bad for Alpha Female’s beta mate. The man does not know the pleasure of seeing a woman in total submission to his will.

    With that said, the only way to win real non-calculated submission from an LTR mate is to take her best shots with amused mastery and Fuck her with savage abandon to finish an argument. Until you have done that, you have not won your girl’s submission. None will truly submit willingly (early relationship bloom does not count).

  77. AlfaFemale’s pull-string talking points are drearily familiar, as is the dynamic of her strident claims to her social justice warrioring.

    I’ve found it useful to laugh and change the subject when someone of this ilk suggests that social progress rests on her sacrificial labors. Why? Well, they still feel entitled to a CEO with a plane and a Porsche, and a functioning prick. It’s a lot of P’s ( junior high alliteration) but they are not going home with PajamaBoy, profound protestations aside.

  78. “Women were just at the mercy and vulnerable to any man in general”

    This seems to be a popular way of looking at history – perhaps because it serves certain interests – but I don’t think it’s a complete picture, it’s too simplistic. Cave man bashes cave woman over head with club and drags her away by hair. People allow cartoon images like this to direct their thinking, and it’s a mistake. I think Jeremy’s statement, which spurred your response, has significant merit, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.

    For starters, look at archaeology. The Venus of Willendorf is perhaps the most famous of over one hundred female figurines which we’ve unearthed across eurasia, spanning a timeline of well over ten thousand years. We do not find any paleolithic male figurines (there’s one with a lion head, but it might be just a lion standing up). What does this tell us? Was this a representation of a female deity? Were women the first artists/sculpturists? Whatever you deduce, the feminine was most certainly valued.

    Then, if you look at Haplogroup demographics, a picture starts to emerge. Y-Chromosomes are generally more widespread than the mitochondrial DNA they would naturally be associated with. This means men moved around more. In some cases, we’re beginning to see evidence that one Y chromosome almost completely replaced another, while the mtDNA signal remains. Generally speaking though, from the end of the last ice age (12000 years ago) until we developed better means to travel, these cultures moved very slowly, most lasting thousands of years. A generation took the same amount of time back then (or shorter) than it does now, so that means the vast majority of unions were relatively peaceful, by the standards of the day.

    But let’s go back to that concept: replacement. In a raiding/marauding situation, it well may have been that women sometimes had no choice in being raped by an invader, and forced to bear his child (hence the war brides dynamic)… but you can bet your ass, it’s because her men DIED trying to protect her. Women have always been so valuable to men that they would lay down their lives for them – women’s lives were literally more important to men than their own, and we can read this in the tea leaves of our DNA today. So this notion that women have been considered low-value throughout history is, again, hogwash.

    Looking to my own perception and experience: that women are just as intelligent as men, albeit with a tendency towards strengths in different areas – in my gut I do not think it would have been possible to “keep all women down as mens’ property” for the entirety of history. I think women have always exerted tremendous influence in shaping society. This would have included things like steering the consensus of the tribe, and yes, pulling the marionette strings inside a powerful man’s mind, among probably many other influences, some structural and logical, like controlling the food supply. But there is simply no way in my mind we would have made it this far if we weren’t cooperating most of the time. Life was just not that easy!

    When you look at it that way, anyone who claims “women have been kept down by men against their will for the entirety of history” is the TRUE misogynist, because this betrays a deep-seated conviction that women are inferior.

    I think there’s no way that could have been done, because I believe women are too smart, too wily, and yes, too strong. So when people use shaming shorthand to try and conjure up victim power to manipulate me, I bristle.

  79. @Dr Nova,

    I’m actually disappointed and I don’t know why. I really thought you were going to try to form a cogent argument in response, but you didn’t. All you did was make some brash general statement about how I think X because I recognize that providing women with access to education was part of the equal rights movement (pick up a damn history book, doc, if you think otherwise), and that I think that cultures that treat women as property and punish them for gang rape are misogynist. Um. The sky is also blue, and the grass is often green. Are you surprised that I think that, doc? Likely.

    My access to scientific journals is limited. I wanted to prevent you from arguing back that ‘intelligence can be quantitatively measured accurately via IQ” when studies show that it isn’t. What I find interesting about you acting dismissive of WebMD is that the source actually listed the sample size at 100,000 making it a very large and comprehensive study (much larger than most scientific studies), which in your ‘science’ brain one would think would be a positive. Apparently not. It’s so juvenile to attack a source and not a point. Again, expected better from you.

    @Rosso, Glad you like her name. I’m the one that came up with it.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: