What are you really saying when you open the door for a woman? Give her your jacket? Help her with a heavy task, or in trouble? Offer to escort her? Pull out a chair? Pay for her meal? Stand up to greet her when she walks in the room? Walk to her left on the street, closer to the car lane? Kiss her hand? Do any of that "knightly stuff" we all saw in movies? That stuff that women fawn over, but claim offends them? Why?
Well, you're saying: I will protect you. As a woman you have an inherent value and I am putting your life and your comfort before my own. You're saying I am ready and capable of protecting you. You're telling her you can provide for her needs and you're putting her under your care. I respect you as a woman and I respect your femininity and it's role in my life. I respect what you mean for our society and I respect all the virtues you adopted as a woman in order to accommodate me, a man. (Which I grant you loses all meaning if said woman has no femininity to speak of.)
Chivalry is not "politeness". It's not "just a ritual". Chivalry is an agreed upon expression of appreciation of gender differences. Something that always existed in one form or another. The woman accepting all those things from a man, showing graceful gratitude and reciprocating with politeness and respect-filled attention in turn, is in her own way showing appreciation of the man's masculinity.
So where did all this come from?
Number of humans always depended on the number of women. Women can mostly mother a single child every year, while an enthusiastic man could, in theory, father hundreds of children in a year. This is the basis of her "biological value". This is the basis of a man's respect for her life before his own. This is the basis of her willingness to die for a child, but desire to have a man who would die for her.
It is instinctively understood that men will fill the boats with women and children when the Titanic starts to sink, while they as a group, without much debate, agree to die that day.
It is instinctively understood that he has to get his ass out of bed, get a bat/gun and go downstairs because she "heard something".
It is instinctively understood that a man, handed a white feather by a woman on the streets of WW1 Britain, is to feel ashamed. Much more ashamed than he'd have felt, had the same feather come from a man.
This is what women want. It's not about your big muscles, or about your "alphaness", it's not about your kill count on COD, or whatever men think makes them a protector in a woman's eyes after leaving a cock fight.
It's about showing her first and foremost, that you will protect her. By caring for her health and safety even if it means opposing her to ensure it. Everything from random chivalry you find acceptable, up to taking a bullet for her is designed to do that. To up your value in her eyes. To make her yours.
It seems so obvious I should not bother writing it, but I do have to. Feminism made sure I have to.
Because feminism thought women to harbour a thousand contradictions in their minds. It shamed them away from their biological urges and made them balance these ideas out, to in the end be able to make demands like: "Treat me like a lady, but fuck you if you think I can't open my own door!"
So, now what? You provide for us, you die for us and all we have to do is have a vagina?
Well... :/
The Leader
50 Shades Of Grey Sold More Than Harry Potter!? WHAT?!
When entering a romantic relationship it is, as previously mentioned, desired for women to have access to your resources and to hold your life in our hands. Men, whether they plan on it, or not, become responsible for women's lives. It's a biological program that we women needed you to have.
In a feminist society next to a "strong independent woman who don't need no man" I'm afraid that's a pretty shitty deal. Wouldn't you agree?
Normally, in exchange for provision and a shield that is a man's life, the woman makes a trade offering something in return: her freedom.
Using logic, experience and plain common sense, one easily realises that, when one person is responsible for the life of another, with that responsibility comes authority (i.e righteously utilised power). More burden and possible blame you take on for whatever happens to beings you're responsible for, more authority you should hold over them. NOT to manipulate them, NOT to abuse them, but to serve them, actually be able to protect them and bring benefit to everyone involved.
Why?
FUNCTIONAL HUMAN SOCIETY
That's why.
The purpose of authority...
No human group (2 or more people) can smoothly function without a leader, hierarchy and accordingly distributed authority.
No country can run without a president, without a centralised government. No school can run without a principal, no police force can run without a sheriff. No traffic can run without a cop. No hotel can run without a manager. No fight can run without a referee. No childhood can run without a parent.
Authority is there to create order. To organise the human group into a unit that can function to it's best capacity. It's there to serve and protect.
The president serves the country by taking responsibility for it's workings and development. The principal serves the school by taking responsibility for it's success and reputation. A cop serves the people by taking responsibility for their safety. The sheriff serves his men by taking responsibility for their actions. The manager serves the guests and takes responsibility for order and their comfort. The referee serves the fighters and takes responsibility for their lives and the fairness of the game. The parent serves the child by taking responsibility for their survival, care and education.
Finally, how is authority achieved?
Trough direction/instruction, reward and punishment.
Giving direction requires the person in charge to know how to express themselves. To do so with assertiveness, clarity, directness, comfort and honesty. This is the "charisma" that supposedly decorates the "alpha male". This is that confidence. Nothing more but learning to convey what you reallythink, and accompany it with a tone and body language that shows how you reallyfeel. Learning to open up and NOT apologise for your thoughts and feelings. Learning to be DEMANDING. Learning to INFLUENCE people. (The opposite of this is a nervous, monotone, shy guy no one listens to.)
Giving reward establishes your authority. It lets the other person know why they should follow your lead and it promotes good behavior you are aiming for. The reward is also given with good/open/clear expression as commendation, as physical affection, rewards/gifts, in the form of your protection and care, etc. It is vital to reward people properly and regularly in order to connect and establish functional relationships, and to be seen as loving towards them.
Punishing people implies expression meant to stop bad/unwanted behavior. Just like you influence/control behavior with reward, you do so with punishment. This is vital and unavoidable. Being able to provide proper punishment to maintain order is what will cause people to respect you much more deeply, than being able to shower them with praise will. Punishing can be delivered verbally (insult, rejection, disagreement), by ignoring, excluding (firing, breaking up, putting in jail), by taking away reward, by providing appropriate physical force (police taser, bodyguard beatdown, slap to the face of a crazy, but small person), etc. Punishment can be as formal as firing a worker, or subtle as disagreeing with a claim of another person in your company.
Same applies to relationships.
How and when feminists convinced us "compromise" is a good idea for a romantic relationships, I don't know, but just looking at a stereotypical marriage today, it's blatantly obvious why it doesn't work, causing more and more children to grow up in dysfunctional homes, or simply fatherless.
It creates a strain on both partners due to a constant power struggle resulting in fighting, avoidance, or resentful, passive aggresive "compliance" of one partner at times to the other.
It destroys romance, intimacy, trust and eventually sexual attraction because it undermines a man's masculine role and its expression causing the woman to think of him as pathetic and useless, forcing her to feel insecure, depressed, and requires the woman to renounce all feminine alure and virtue (but her beauty) in turn making the man to see her as an aggressive, evil, nagging bitch who only had sex with him to trick him into marrying her.
It destroys order in the household when both parents attempt to stear the wheel. You're more likely to end up in a ditch than at either one of your desired destinations.
Finding someone to marry should not be a needle in a haystack type of deal. Families should not be breaking left and right. Relationships should not be reduced to sex. Romance should not be defined by restaurants, chocolates and flowers.
A man's authority and female submission are basis of all romance in relationships. They require both to connect to one another, tie their lives into one, trust one another and work together as a union.
Next to a man able to control the relationship/exert authority and not compromise it, or have it taken away from him, women open up emotionally. This is how women fall in love...
Just like a man was programmed to accomodate her, she did the same to accomodate him. Authority enables the man to adjust the woman to himself and make sure his needs are met, just like he will aim to meet her needs.
Women find comfort, safety and emotional care they need so much under a man's authority. Left to her own devices, with her partner "not caring what she does because she's independent" a woman will easily fall into traps of her own insecurity feeling unloved, or simply detach from him and turn her attention to another. (This is why those "independent alpha males" suck and lose relationships as well. There is no independence in love. You either do it right, or you endure the bullshit you created)
Today, the closest to thing we can find to this, is a marginalised group of practitioners expressing their desires under an abbrevation: BDSM. That's what feminism did to romantic relationships. To desires of the majority of heterosexual men and women. It reduced them to "a fetish". It reduced them to something shamefull and marginal. Something people are only allowed to admit they are "into" if they also accept how "weird" and "uncommon" they are.
And even then some feminist cunt will protest.
Worst part of all this is that BDSM always had it's place in society and while it use to ACTUALLY encompass only few people with "extreme tastes", today it can be easily practiced by 90% of people because it implies all I described above as well as the "extreme version".
This is the reason why 50 Shades Of Grey sells despite its main character being as bland as a wall, whiny and annoying and a "rare" BDSM practitioner. Despite the plot being boring as fuck, despite the female character being a stupid goat.
It sells because on it's surface, it touches all female desires without missing a single one. Its sells because of evolution. (I swear if the book wasn't so retarded, I'd think E.L. James was some kind of genious manipulator.)
Finally, closing explanations...
Why nice guys SUCK. Why bad boys SUCK.
Nice guys simply lack authority because they only know how to reward. They aren't even rewarding, they are kissing ass. They are submitting by offering their efforts (protection and provision) unconditionally. They are useless teddy bears unable to provide any kind of structure in a woman's life. Presenting themselves as mere tools to be used, instead of men to be respected. Nice guys suck because they don't lead, they ask for permission, they "play cool" and they end up the friendzone.
So how do they EVER get laid you ask?
Because bad boys suck even more. Bad boys don't understand authority. They are self centered sociopaths who control women (thus attracting them), but only for their own selfish interest. They have no empathy and they ruin everything they touch. After they crush a girl, she happily settles for the nice guy doormat, convinced that her desire for male authority is just a masochistic sickeness she must deny at all costs for the rest of her life, because it can't bring her anything but pain.
And she's right.
In a society where the idea that leadership belongs to men is an offensive "patriarchal conspiracy", what chance does she have at encountering kind, functional male authority?
Disclaimers
Women do have skill and knowledge to keep going without men (to a degree). Rare female exceptions are even on par with the best of men, but women in general have functioned as a back up system for lack of male workforce, developed strenght in their own way, have exchanged genes with men all our history... Still, that does not refute assertions of male superior skill ON AVERAGE, or desired, most functional roles I described in this Take.
Not all people are the same. Not everyone has had the appropriate sex hormones and brain curcuitry in order to come out as the womb as the potential representative of their gender. You may be transgender, butch, effeminate, gay, whatever... It's your biology. This however does not mean what I said is not true for the majority of people, nor does it mean they should apologise to you for belonging to the majority. We accept and respect you, do the same for us. We're not calling for banning of "fags" and "dykes" in public life, so you ought to stop bitching about "heteronarmitivity".
This will be hard to accept if you're a biologically regular member of your gender raised to completely disrespect and resent all idea of masculinity/femininity because of feminism. Your identity as an aggressive feminist bitch, or an effeminate nice guy will suffer a blow. Please try to keep the butthurt raging to a minimum. Thank you.
The fact that there are so many people apologising for their biology, yet feminists still feel offended by "patriarchy" should serve as another proof of what I'm claiming. If this was societal influence, it would not be a problem today. Feminists run the our culture, laws, all ideas of proriety. They are fighting biology and sooner we face it, sooner we can hope to fix it.
What Women Really Want! Cutting through the nice guy, alpha male, "confidence" bullshit (Part 2)
Post Opinion
Like
Share
Follow
9 likes
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Very nice! It wasn't just a 5000 word rant, but you actually connected your ideas together. Admittedly, I've only read about half so far (cooking currently), but I'll sit down to read the rest when I'm done.
To me, it seems like society has thought to itself "I have higher level thinking that other animals don't, so I can control what I do and how I act". So then it went on a streak of questioning anything and everything like a teenager with a new car- just going on a rampage for the sake of it.
So now we have people rejecting old roles, trying to dive into natural instincts and urges at the same time, either not sure what to replace those roles with so they revert back to the old ones when convenient OR confused and without direction due to this new void, women are strong and independent, men must watch themselves and tone back their roles and behaviors they've developed for the last few hundred thousand years...
... and yet, nobody is happy. Women are left feeling dissatisfied with men, men don't know how to act towards women anymore. Nobody is happy
5
0 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Yes, yes, and YES. I love you. I usually don't read Takes that are this long, but it's as though you were picking my mind and I couldn't stop reading. People always make me feel ashamed of what I want in a guy and what I want to be as a woman. They want me to conform to the way THEY want to live. Of course I think women should have rights and a woman doesn't necessarily HAVE to marry, and she can work if she wishes, too. But to look down on men or women for wanting what we are basically designed to do is almost laughable.
8
2 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
Also, kudos to you for saying what needs to be said, because I'm sure a few people may give you crap for this. I've always been too afraid to say anything, because anytime I try to be my own person, people yell at me and try to make me conform to their lifestyles.
"This will be hard to accept if you're a biologically regular member of your gender raised to completely disrespect and resent all idea of masculinity/femininity because of feminism."
It's not just hard to accept, but it can also be hard to -implement-, if most of your prospective dates have been raised to disrespect and resent the idea of masculinity/femininity'.
Acts of chivalry are a good example, where beyond being accepted or not accepted, they are -interpreted- differently. Women who expect men to lead and look to men as strong protectors will interpret chivalry as an act of protection from a place of strength. Many 'modern' women however view themselves naturally as not requiring protection, and hence interpret chivalry not as an act of benevolence, but as one of servitude - which makes the man seem WEAK not strong. So they actually -dislike- it.
I think there's some truth in the 'bullshit' that women like confident strong males, everywhere, but specific acts that in one demographic may seem strong in another seem weak. People have to work within their demographic norms.
"It's not just hard to accept, but it can also be hard to -implement-, if most of your prospective dates have been raised to disrespect and resent the idea of masculinity/femininity'." People quickly realise this works once they implement it. That's why it stick easily once a person renounces feminist propaganda. And my dates aren't like that. I'd never date a guy like that. D=
I agree if the -couple- implements it, it's likely to work for a majority (not all) couples.
In real life, i meet precisely zero women who would describe themselves as traditional. I meet them online, but not in real life. I expect it's where i live.
I wouldn't describe myself as traditional in real life either. A man has to earn my trust and love to learn this. This intimate stuff, it makes a woman sooo vulnerable. No way a woman would easily present this to the world.
Also majority of them, mostly those who never dated a guy who made them feel this way, don't even know it. On some level they get it, but on the surface they can't possibly face it.
Fantastically written! I Agree as a whole in equality between the genders when it comes to social constructs but there are limitations to the equality that can be given based on what you state here which is the limitations of each gender physically and mentally. example if I may, lets say women and men are able to compete against each other in the olympics, but men out perform women at every turn, would they start giving the women head starts in the dashes? how would they balance out the match if men are physically superior? (this is all but a thought that has come to my head no need for answer if you don't want to).
what caused you to come to write this my take?
what makes you not afraid of the feminist women out there who would try to counter-act this? (I guess really what I'm asking here is why you would go against your genders supposed "Feminist agenda" if that makes sense lol. I know that sounds stupid but there are not many women out there who would post this or anything even close to it because women are just as good as men etc etc .)
Also what do you say to those feminist who use the patriarchy as a scapegoat for ALL of societies problems?
"how would they balance out the match if men are physically superior?" You can't balance it out. The gap between men and women is not static for you to come up with a good "head start".
"what caused you to come to write this my take? " Irritation over the huge number of nice guys I've gone out with. It's like someone is giving these guy a manual titled: "How to turn a woman off. Become the plush teddy bear with a strap on, she never dreamed of!"
"what makes you not afraid of the feminist women out there who would try to counter-act this? " Feminists are creating an illusion that they are in the majority. That's not true. They are just really loud and thus influential in politics and popular culture. But majority of women are just passive about feminism. They don't understand it at all.
"Also what do you say to those feminist who use the patriarchy as a scapegoat for ALL of societies problems?" I was told using the word "retarded" is insulting now, so I'd just keep my mouth shut...
I don't want to hate on you because you are clearly very intelligent, however, in dedication to my fellow men, I have to say to all the men reading this: please don't think of yourself in terms of provider or protector. Maybe leader is ok, but the point is don't play a role for a woman because you do not work for her and you cannot have your identity wrapped up in being "mr. provider" or even "mr. protector." If you think providing for your girl is an important part of your masculinity then do so, but don't do it because you're trying to be the provider. At the end of the day, a woman doesn't need you to provide for her. She can provide for herself (or has parents who can.) I think this article is more to help women understand why they are attracted to certain men, but don't take anything away from this except that women need you to know who you are and what you value (since they don't.) And in terms of the alpha-male losing relationships... men, be honest... when you hook up with a girl she always wants to be your gf the next day. If alpha males lose most of their relationships it's because they don't value anyone enough to not be selfish. (alpha-male is still a bad term because its a term that gets you comparing yourself to other men, which undermines your self-confidence) but I'll stop ranting since this isn't my article...
" don't play a role for a woman because you do not work for her" If you LEAD a woman you are providing for and protecting, then she works for you, not the other way around. Apple provides for and protects its employees. But the employees work for them, because people who run Apple lead.
All you wrote makes sense if the guy is an emasculated westerner held at gunpoint by cultural influence of feminism. But if he isn't and is able to lead, it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable to indulge in the need to be a provider and protector. Because biologically, men have that need. It IS a part of them.
But I think you may miss (because you're not a man) that a lot of guys will hear you say that and think "ok she wants me to be a provider... that will make her happy... if i can just give her what she wants then she will be into me and i will feel good" So, I guess there's nothing inherently wrong in what you wrote, I just think it needs clarification because otherwise guys will try to conform to what you women say you want and then either be unhappy (because he feels like a slave because he didn't choose to be the provider/protector he just did it to win points) or it won't work as well as he hoped it would and he'll get mad that it "doesn't work" and get even more bitter. You have to be delicate with men. lol. especially on here.
So this is about male pride? I'm not controlling guys, I'm telling them that what they ALREADY want to do is normal and functional. I'm telling them to learn to exert control themselves, because that's what's needed for everyone's happiness.
And this right here is why. Everything I wrote is accurate, useful (to both genders) and perfectly sensible. But because you're so sensitive to being controlled by women, you write a paragraph of "we are our own men" nonsense.
If you actually knew how to control women in relationships, you wouldn't worry if she's telling you what to do. You would ALREADY know that it's your choice what you do in the end, even if you listen to the woman, or tell her to shut up.
Your pride wouldn't be on the line for something petty as a woman having written this article.
The point is she is a traditionalist bigot who is waking up the equal world and is butthurt that people don't see her bigoted view as natural. Her "take" is being judged as sexist garbage and she complains about it.
If you're soft and pliable and vulnerable to the authoritative influence of a guy are willing to give up your freedom and ate only doIng 20% of the thinking of something some guy opened your eyes to... Then how can you be confident you're actually thinking anything at all.
And exactly what place does studying in university hold for a persons who's geared towards child rearing and submitting to a man.
University is a very recent phenomenon for eomdn. It was prohibited Bc womdn were thiight to suffer their uterus from too much extraneous ( to conceotIon) thinking. Women are only admitted to school now Bc women did not submit to male authority and fought for it.
You wouldn't be earning studying or hold a degree if Women conducted themselves in the way you claim is natural- with a limited 20% brain power relative to yourself which is odd.
Yours pretty uppity and pushy and insistent , for someone who thinks its mens place to think pass judgement enlighten people and hold authority.
You personally would be more in line with your claims if you asked your bf- your guru or your leader or whoever it is you refer to to verify your thinking- to come on here and write about This topic or any topic. As a Womsn hat can you possibly know. Not what you " think" you know... But really be cognizant of The way a man can be.
It's intersting you've chosen to come on here at all as an authority on the subject of how women can not hold authority and no self respecting man would allow it,
You've been refuting yourself since the first paragraph. The reason all these guys love what you're saying is bc you're boosting their egos. You could right an article about how what women really want is to be pumped and dumped and your get even more audience appreciation,
If these guys really took your article seriously and could think rationslly, then they could not take your article seriously simply Bc you -inferior in every way except baby making woman- are the one writing it,
"If you're soft and pliable and vulnerable to the authoritative influence of a guy are willing to give up your freedom and ate only doIng 20% of the thinking of something some guy opened your eyes to... Then how can you be confident you're actually thinking anything at all." This is either philosophical, or you've just displayed you're totally dumb... =/
"And exactly what place does studying in university hold for a persons who's geared towards child rearing and submitting to a man." You mean for a woman? Any place that will enable her to sustain herself in case her husband dies, in case she must work for needing the money, in case she can afford to work and feels like it because she has time, or in case she is a woman who doesn't want a family/maybe even a husband at all. We don't live in a society that takes care of women like it use to. Before a woman didn't have to work to live well, today she does. While all this time she COULD go to college. She just chose not to. Feminists lied
Pretty baldy claiming any humsn being would and should naturally " prefer" to give up their freedom. Let alone over 50% of the worlds population.
I don't know if you missed all the major events in history where people flight to the death to protect their and fellow human beings right to be " free".
I don't think freedom human rights human dignity is really considered a feminist issue. I think it's pretty much a social problem on a world scale.
So in your opinion if eimrn suddenly submitted to mrn eould this smd war of aggression imperialism fascism genocide nuclear threat - which incidentally the inception of, funnily , was not at the emmergence of " feminism". Considering we know of wars rape pillaging bondage endentured servitude witch hunts burnings... All dates way back. Wayyyyyyy before bratty feminists.
I don't see how infantalizing 50% of the population to the group historically respondable for violdnce, is going go help bring about peace,
"University is a very recent phenomenon for eomdn. It was prohibited Bc womdn were thiight to suffer their uterus from too much extraneous ( to conceotIon) thinking. Women are only admitted to school now Bc women did not submit to male authority and fought for it." Bullshit. Women led, women schooled themselves and women COULD work many jobs and be independent. There are plenty of educated women and even female leaders preceding feminism. And at times when women weren't allowed education, men had none either. (Women were allowed education as far back as old Athens. They chose not to because they could. Femisnism came in packaged as a part of socialist propaganda and FORCED women to work saying it's "freeing them". The only freedom they brought was abolishment of social pressure for women to stay home, but hopped right into social pressure for women to become men.
Second, first wave sufferegets spat on men. They turned them away and put them in the back even if men wanted join them
Or did you think that sll magically happened while you were studying evolutionary osychologicapsychological
Or do you just think the world doesn't matter as long as the nuclear family is in tact... Even if they get wiped out by nuclear war fare at least they lived by their " nature"
Is technology " nature" is the tool you are using atm to spread the word about " nature", natural?
I don't think " nature" is the best supporting argument given by someone who's not even supposed to be - naturally- giving arguments in the first place, and is doing it from a computer - which had everyine loved by their supposed" nature" that person would not be allowed to use men's tools.
Feminist first wave even wasn't about women opposing men. It was about socialist propaganda of "equality".
"You wouldn't be earning studying or hold a degree if Women conducted themselves in the way you claim is natural- with a limited 20% brain power relative to yourself which is odd." That's not what.. Do you breathe exclusively through your mouth?
"Yours pretty uppity and pushy and insistent , for someone who thinks its mens place to think pass judgement enlighten people and hold authority." I NEVER said that. I was talking about personal relationships. WHEN did I say women should hold no opinion and should have no voice? You hypocrite, be ashamed of yourself. Twisting my words and playing dumb all over the comment, only because you want to sound superior and right. Yuck.
"You personally would be more in line with your claims if you asked your bf- your guru or your leader or whoever it is you refer to to verify your thinking- to come on here and write about This topic or any topic. As a Womsn hat can you possibly know. Not what you " think" you know... But really be cognizant of The way a man can be." Yes I can. Because what I say makes sense. Because what I claim can be verified. Because I have intellectual honesty and integrity behind my words. People know my words make sense because they touch them and are consistent.
You're just here insulting me and twisting my words. You're so disgusting. I bet your next move will be to report me for insulting you. Will it? Hypocrite...
"It's intersting you've chosen to come on here at all as an authority on the subject of how women can not hold authority..." ... in a relationship. Not in general. If they choose a partner THAT's what they want from him.
And not that women "can not" hold authority in a relationship, but should not do so, because it never makes them truly happy.
"The reason all these guys love what you're saying is bc you're boosting their egos." Guys who can't lead are unattractive to women. All these guys who like this mostly have no idea how to lead. I have just told them they suck and they like it because most of them have the good sense to see my words are consistent, truthful and rational. They like it because feminist bitches like you insist on lying to them.
"If these guys really took your article seriously and could think rationslly," You're the LAST person who gets to preach on "rational thought".
"I don't know if you missed all the major events in history where people flight to the death to protect their and fellow human beings right to be " free"." But a woman enjoying submission and CHOOSING a guy who would make her submit because that attracts her is unacceptable to you?
"I don't think freedom human rights human dignity is really considered a feminist issue. I think it's pretty much a social problem on a world scale. " Bullshit. You're a feminist and you're making this into a feminist issue. At least own it. And rest is so generic you're not saying anything here.
"So in your opinion if eimrn suddenly submitted to mrn eould this smd war " This is too stupid to be replied. I don't know where to begin... It's... =O
"I don't see how infantalizing 50% of the population to the group historically respondable for violdnce, is going go help bring about peace," Women are as violent as men, only in a different way, because women are less powerful and less directly aggressive.
"Or do you just think the world doesn't matter as long as the nuclear family is in tact... Even if they get wiped out by nuclear war fare at least they lived by their " nature"" Another point too dumb to be addressed...
"I don't think " nature" is the best supporting argument given by someone who's not even supposed to be - naturally- giving arguments in the first place," Another intellectually dishonest playing dumb. Gross.
"and is doing it from a computer - which had everyine loved by their supposed" nature" that person would not be allowed to use men's tools." This is hypocritical AND retarded.
I won't block you. I would never block you. You're the perfect example of what feminists are. These peebrain comments are beautiful. Please keep going.
So evolutionary psychology... Where did you get your information. What books in particular?
Unfortunately I can't really take anything you say seriously, seeing as you don't think for all intents and purposes , a woman can BE taken seriously... But maybe I'll get something out of the books your plagiarizing from.
"So evolutionary psychology... Where did you get your information. What books in particular?" Are you too dumb to google? That's like saying: So ABCs... Where did you get your information. What books in particular?
All of them? It's been years since I read many of them. Take your pick. Do I have to drop names to seem credible? It's all available out in the open. Just study.
"Unfortunately I can't really take anything you say seriously, seeing as you don't think for all intents and purposes , a woman can BE taken seriously... But maybe I'll get something out of the books your plagiarizing from." No, not a woman... A hypocritical moron like you.
You made a rather large claim based on things you read. I was intersted in the source. Nothing to do eith you proving snything. I'm not intersted in your credibility I was curious about where you got your " infirmation".
Literally. That was my only purpose in asking. It's s normsl thing to do. someone says they got some interstimg ideas from a book. someone else says "oh really what book."
I don't care about name dropping. I am intersted in research.
I never ask for names Bc I think it builds credibility. Simply for educational purposes.
In addition dependimg on how many years ago it was., Experts change their approach; they make new findings; they negate old findings... Questions themselves chznge over time.
It's unlikely anything you read so many years ago that you can't recall , would still be up to date theoretically in academic circles. That's another readon im intersted in what books you're referring to. I like to contrast and compare. Old literature vs new. :)
"I don't care about name dropping. I am intersted in research." It took years. It included MANY books, observation, experience and learning what other people know. Then piecing all these things together. In part on my own, in part taking ideas from others. If I were to take you trough my journey I'd have to recall stuff from 6 years ago. I can't. And this is NOT just based on a specific book. It's REINFORCED by it.
"It's unlikely anything you read so many years ago that you can't recall , would still be up to date theoretically in academic circles. " That's a ridiculous assertion. There is no expiration date on correct.
"I never ask for names Bc I think it builds credibility. Simply for educational purposes." I already gave you advice for that. Google is your friend. Start there.
And I hope you take this one. And I'm so glad you stopped being sneakily insulting in the last two comments. I don't know if you're faking it, but had you come to me with that attitude, we could have actually talked properly and even learned from one another. I hope you keep this up.
Great take. I never bought into the alpha/beta crap.
In short, I am the protector and leader, and working on becoming a provider.
But that doesn't change the fact that a majority of women in the 18-24 range are completely clueless and have no idea how to recognize the necessary traits of a man you described (key word, majority, you're 20, I'm not insulting the ENTIRE age group lol). Its a shame being a parent and raising a family is a subject of ridicule. Its the most important occupation anyone can have
That being said, instead of saying "women suck, they only want jerks, nice guys finish last etc" I just tell myself "They'll come around. I'll just keep kicking ass in life".
There is one other thing too: "The man who can live with a woman is the one who can live without her". The longer stays single, not casually fornicating his way around, whose entire meaning as a man is not solely based on having a woman for the sake of having her, the more he will appreciate and cherish her when she enters his life.
Great read, something many men can learn a lot from
-Majority of women aren't "clueless" about this. Almost ALL women are. A woman is biologically predisposed to be governed by a man, but that also makes her emotional and sensitive, easily willing to comply with social pressure and receptive of aggression. And instead of a man jumping in there like a puzzle piece and forming a loving relationship with her teaching her about her needs, feminism jumped in there using aggression, social pressure and feminist propaganda to twist all she feels into something morbid. That's how women come to know things.
I would never blame a woman for not knowing these things, nor would I expect to find one that does if I were a man. You're the initiators, the future leaders, you are the ones with the ability to figure this out. Women, unless a man tells them all this, are helpless.
And yes, I am not a "rare woman who saw the light" by herself. A man thought me these things and opened my mind. I was a teen feminist. Merely 20% of this is originally mine.
-That being said, instead of saying "women suck, they only want jerks, nice guys finish last etc" I just tell myself "They'll come around. I'll just keep kicking ass in life". -I'm sorry, but learning to get women to submit to you, learning to be dominant makes you irresistible. THAT is the confidence women keep repeating and they all get wet if they encounter it. If women just "aren't coming around" with you, you may not be as dominant of a man as you think. You may need to find some guy to teach you how to be dominant.
I know I'm not as "dominant" as I think, but I'll be damned if I'll let some dude coach me on my love life. That's getting me to not be me. I hate that.
I'm confrontational, aggressive, and blunt.
Many women despise me for that.
You wrote a great take, but when you start criticizing my character simply because I choose to be single until I'm a little older and meet a more mature women by saying "I'm not as dominant as I think"
This dominant enough for you bitch? I don't need anyone to teach me how to get women.
I'm passive until I determine she is worth it.
In case you're wondering, I'm one confrontational bastard. Part of the reason I'm single, because I calk many people out on their bullshit.
With your last statement, you just immediately changed my opinion about you.
"The longer stays single... whose entire meaning as a man is not solely based on having a woman for the sake of having her, the more he will appreciate and cherish her when she enters his life." Humans have advanced brains that look past the primary urge to preserve the species. But that is still a primary urge. We need one another, we are not independent one bit. Become a man and build an identity, sure. But he doesn't need a woman "for the sake of having her", "longer he stays single"? What's that about? =/ Just because his brain is advanced and can do other things beyond wanting a woman, it doesn't mean its primary desire is gone. It doesn't mean "he should come to not need a woman". He can't ever do that. He can only learn to be intolerant of bullshit and become ready to lose her if she doesn't obey him.
It's not about being unafraid, it's about learning to face the fear. If you fear a woman, you can't punish, therefore can't lead.
I really suggest you try to find advice from men who are good at this. I am not a man, I can explain leadership, but I can't really teach it to you. Sorry.
@PT1911 @inamorata I understand the exact position you're in because I'm largely still in it. I've come to find that a lot of women do not like confrontation. It makes them uncomfortable, especially with someone they don't want to be confronted by i. e. the guy they are interested in. I'm not saying that is true in all cases but it is a tendency I have observed.
How this relates to you is as follows: do not try to aggressively "confront" females. They will not like that, in fact most people will not like that not just females. They want you to be strong, confident, and be able to protect them but they don't want you to treat them as an enemy.
Women have VERY developed intuition that has evolved over millions of years that is encoded in their DNA. Women want a strong guy but they don't want said strong guy to harm them or their children. That's why "gentleman" are so prized among women. They want the best of both worlds. The guy who can protect them and teach their offspring.
Smartest guys I ever met were not the ones who "knew everything", but those who only cared about figuring out the truth and knew how to handle their pride in order to get to it.
"Devalue your strengths by telling me your weaknesses."
In any case, I agree with some of your points on what females want. Which is, in part, why I'm just going to fuck as many as I can and then send them on their way. If all guys thought this way about females, then much less of us would indulge their innate desire to 'keep a man' for protection and hard-earned resources. Well, maybe for awhile until we got tired of fucking you and moved on to a different woman. That's fine by me. You indulge your nature, and I'll indulge mine. Although, I'll be the one winning in the end. Provided a female's other job isn't successful--to keep me around for that protection and those resources.
At least, I can say that women would be having a much tougher time holding on to one man.
Thanks to this feminist society, I grew up with unrealistic expectations of what being with a girl is. At the moment, I'm contemplating climbing my way up the ladder, attaining a high level of resources, then using those resources to manipulate women, making them fall in love with my resources, and then yanking those resources away, crushing them for their nature. As mentioned, it's not all about resources, but I'm confident in my ability to check a few other requirements off the list. Maybe I'll just pretend to lose everything, then see what happens with her 'love'.
My own nature sickens me enough, as it is. Then I figured out some of these bits a few years ago. It's all just too much. It's just... depressing after being indoctrinated from birth in to believing in equality between the genders, the partnership of being with a woman. It's learning that there most likely is no God, and I'm entirely alone in the universe, again. How many more indoctrinations must I find?
Fuck it. Maybe I'd prefer to fight against biology. Maybe I'll aid the transhumanists. Of course, humans will fuck that up, too.
"You indulge your nature, and I'll indulge mine." Fucking many women is not your nature. Maintaining the species is. And that implies monogamy, love, intimacy, because fathering a child and offering it a safe environment with both parents is as vital as having many kids for the species lives.
But if there are enough men to go around, women don't need you to fuck many of them. You become more functional as a father and husband within the species, instead of a sperm dispenser.
The desire to fuck around for a man is hurtful and as dysfunctional as the female desire to fuck one guy who is genetically preferable, but suck on the resources of the guy with most of them.
You are basically a male version of a today's divorcee using the law system to suck her partner dry of resources while scanning for a better specimen. You're retaliating instead of trying to fix the problem.
Men are meant to seek quantity (fucking many women is our nature), this is because of reproductive fitness dynamics, as in a man can knock up 5 women in a day a women can only get knocked up once in 9 months, so you only need a small amount of men to knock up all the women, this coupled with risk of pregnancy, makes men more sexually driven and women more selective. The reason you don't see a lot of men fucking lots of women and not settling down is because it's hard to do, most would be doing it if they could, Women can get sex far easier (the reproductive dynamics i mentioned, thus have evolved to use it to their advantage. This is pareto's principle caused by bateman's principle,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle , long story short men are sluts, women are whores.
That's what i just explained, how could you argue against those reproductive dynamics, us having the ability to produce 1000s of kids per year to your one is for nothing? i learnt this in anthro and cognitive science at university.
I did not argue against it, I explained its role and function. Why are you making me spoon feed you knowledge instead of reading what I wrote?
Fucking 50 women is done when you are LACKING 49 men. That means you are in a crisis, in small numbers and you need this urge in order to make sure more babies are born.
This is a PATCH UP system for the human species in a CRISIS. Yes it's a part of the male program. This desire to spread you genes and to do it a lot so our numbers stay up...
But being a father in a monogamous relationship in order to raise your children is ALSO male program. The one meant for us when we are NOT IN A CRISIS. When you have 50 women and 50 men too!
And a monogamous relationship in which a man devotes to a woman and her children is THE MOST FUNCTIONAL way to raise our young. Even today single mothers produce the wast majority of criminals behind bars.
pareto's principle caused by bateman's principle all i can say is this and female hypergamy, answer by other post about female sexual narcissism, it's an accepted fact
hahaah you think women will be dispersed in the men they chose, the most functional way to raise our young is to have the best genes knock up the women and have money raise them, a small amount of men can knock up all the women, but you need a lot more men to raise all the children.
yeah cause they haven't settled with their beta male, i am talking about the how women are attracted to a small amount of men, while men are attracted to a large amount of women, they are single because of my point, they wan't the top males, but the top males only want them for sex (we would all do it if we could) but since the average guy can't get casual sex easily, thy will have to be in a relationship to get sex on a regular bases, this is what i have been explaining all along.
I explained this in the first part how and why attraction works. I explained women seek out the best they can find, not just the best. I explained you're full of shit with your studies. I already explained what every species has as a primary goal -raising many young the best way.
I explained all of this and your answer to that is: "Buuuut women only want the best men! Wha, wha!"
You're a mouth breathing moron. I'll block you now and hopefully that will prevent you from spamming me with your dumb whining. I've never blocked anyone before. Congratulations on being my first. ;)
LMFAO @ men are naturally monogamous. Pretty sure I know my dick better than you do.
by the way. You are one supercilious bitch. You could get your point across so much more efficiently by using the Socratic Method or by... oh, I don't know, not being a cunt. If your goal was truly to spread this message of truthfulness and breaking the cycle of feminism indoctrination, then you would use more efficient means. Clear as day, from these heights, you're looking for an intellectual dinner. And not the knowledge kind. Gobble gobble, I eats your brain cuz it are smaller than mine. Just saying. If you really want to convince people, you're going to have to learn some humbleness. Of course, keep doing what you're doing if you just want to show off and exert your intellectual prowess over others. Hubris is still... unattractive. Also, try *this* for accentuation. Doesn't matter what you're trying to do in caps, it still comes off obnoxious.
For now, getting multiple women preggers is good for males.
"LMFAO @ men are naturally monogamous. Pretty sure I know my dick better than you do. " I did not say that. I said men have a need for monogamy just like women do, because fucking around can't deliver what monogamy can.
In other words, males (and females) benefit from having children from different partners. I'm not sure where you got caught up on your monogamy trip, but I'd suggest seriously reexamining it. A woman's tendency is to trade up--if she finds a more fit male, what is she supposed to do, naturally? Stay within her monogamous relationship and miss the opportunity of a better gene pool? As for men, our natural motto is more children equals win. We just shotgun that shit. Or, we would if we could get away with it. One is bound to survive. We have no need to protect or provide (especially in this society, so if it was our nature then bam, taken care of, nothing to protect them from and their mother will do just fine providing)
Though, feel free to convince your next boyfriend that he's actually monogamous. As long as your fucking him on a regular basis, he won't argue. Just don't have sex with him for awhile, and watch how monogamous he is. You'll find out the hard way, I guess.
Curiously, however, how did you come to the conclusion that males are naturally monogamous? And further, I think we can both safely say that humans are *not* naturally monogamous, they're natural serial monogamists. And, frankly, serial monogamy is closer to polygamy than it does monogamy. True monogamy is one mate for life. Humans are very rare to do such a thing. So, are you saying that males are naturally monogamous? Or that we're natural serial monogamists? Or do you classify both of those under the wider banner of monogamy?
What can monogamy deliver? And, is this a natural characteristic of men or a taught/learned one? I wasn't sure which you were asserting. Also, I'm pretty damn high and pretty damn tired. So, I'll pick this back up tomorrow if you care to reply.
You think monogamy has little to offer because you live in a society where functional monogamy is hard to find. Men have needs for intimacy, companionship and commitment too. Men too want to settle down. It's a natural urge just like sleeping around is.
You're all stupid in this thread. You don't need a BA degree in anything to know OP is just a insecure person hence why he needs to try and have sex with as many women as possible. He blames it on a "feminist society" when in reality, it's probably him who is the problem in the long run. Go ahead and say that stupid excuse that since this happens in the animal kingdom, it's normal.
I'm a human being and understand the difference between right and wrong. "My own nature sickens me enough, as it is." You're "beta" because you don't like your lifestyle yet continue to pursue it.
@inamorata The ironic part is that you're both right to an extent. In theory, ideally (or most efficiently) with respect to evolution, females would seek out the most viable so-called 'stud' (probably in the top 1-10ish%) to produce offspring with and have a less viable mate be the father and raise the offspring.
The problem with that is the so-called less viable mate probably isn't even that much less viable to begin with (given how far evolution has come and how similar are genetics are to begin with anyway) and certainly isn't willing to raise someone else's kid. And so the female in an evolutionary sense would probably settle given those circumstances, unless of course she did it without the second male finding out.
Granted, viability is certainly subjective and that's where being territorial comes in. The so-called most viable male IS the most territorial and thats why he was the leader.
@inamorata This is of course still neglecting the fact that humans are not limited by their instincts (as most animals typically are) and can alter their mating choices. And companionship is probably just as important at least for raising children and for general safety which is why for the most part humans throughout their history mate for life even after their children have been raised.
This is probably partly due to hormones released in the brain during sexual intercourse. At least some animals even without higher cognitive processes mate for life also so it certainly isn't limited to human beings.
@inamorata And don't kid yourself marriage is not coincidence. It developed independently across the world even when those communities had zero contact with one another. Humans like companionship. And that's the bottom line.
To me it can be simplified much further than that. ALL mating strategies in nature turn to the BEST available way to raise the young. We all know that the best way to raise our young is a monogamous relationship with two parents. In not-so-ideal situations humans adapted and because they developed urges for procreation, they also developed the capacity to overindulge in them.
So if you have an urge to fuq and the highest ideal for your kids is to be in a faithful monogamous relationship, all else in times of comfort is overindulgence. If you cheat, it's overindulgence. If you fuck many people, that's overindulgence, if you take more partners that's overindulgence.
Same way we developed capacities to eat a certain amount of food according to how much energy we spend. But because we have the urge to eat, we have a capacity to overindulge. In times of average energy usage overeating is overindulgence. But it stops being overindulgence in times of crisis when you have to move more.
"It takes a village to raise a child." <----Apparently someone didn't know that it takes a monogamous relationship to raise a child. Humans raise their children in *numerous* ways. Diversity is a strength.
You mistake societal influence for nature. While yes, humans do have a natural desire for companionship, at max, you could say that we like to jump from person to person--not exactly monogamous. Divorce rates at 60%, more and more people abandoning marriage each year. Why? My claim, is because marriage was formed on a religious foundation: last century, more people would stick it out out of religious fervor. Why do dopamine and oxytocin levels spike when meeting a good potential mate, then decline over time? Then they spark up again, but with a different person.
If monogamous relationships were so viable, so 'natural', if we had a need for them, then why do we continuously disregard them? *Serial* monogamy. At least use the right words, ffs.
"If monogamous relationships were so viable, so 'natural', if we had a need for them, then why do we continuously disregard them?" Same reason we overeat.
There's a difference there. To overeat is to indulge a natural desire: a physiological imperative. Monogamous relationships aren't biological imperatives, in my opinion. The only imperative is reproduction, not just monogamous reproduction. Nor can one indulge in monogamy by disregarding it.
For men, at least, indulging the natural desire, the biological imperative, would be to pursue as many women as possible--that desire is suppressed in a monogamous relationship, but not eliminated: thus cheating and divorce, in many cases.
"Monogamous relationships aren't biological imperatives, in my opinion. " EXACTLY the core of our disagreement. No more than that needs to be said at all.
I already explained my stance. You may keep the last word.
And yet, your stance lacks any empirical proof or legitimate theoretical foundings. Essentially, you just said, "Guys are naturally monogamous because they want to protect their babies." And, I already mentioned the failure in your own understanding of 'monogamous', anyway: which you never addressed. Humans, both women and men, are *clearly* not purely monogamous, since we damn near invariably jump to another partner at some point.
Maybe that's why you chose to give up the conversation. I don't blame you. Since you're so arrogant, it must be hard to lose an argument--and even be shown that you didn't even know what words you were using.
Well, even the scientific community is split on the nature of humans' sexual relationships long-term. At minimum, neither of us can prove our points. It's all just conjecture. In other words, your assertion that humans' became monogamous in order to best raise their children is also conjecture.
Not to mention your assumption that, "Oh, yeah, we all 'just know' that the best way to raise children is monogamy."
In any event, I'm personally not buying into the bullshit. It's in my best interest to fuck as many women as possible, in a way to where they can't find me if they get pregnant, then carry on. If I embellish a bit in the resource department, then they were shallow, anyway. It's irrelevant as to how many women *need* me to fuck them, also. There are whores and bar quasi-sluts all over the place.
And, I'm not nearly as bad as women who ruin mens' lives by becoming a parasite and devouring half of their resources.
Great essay. I do disagree in terms of the results of the mice utopia experiment. According to this results , once a societal group achieves a) lack of predators ( wich in human societies has being achieved since mass production of peniciline in 1944/45 ) and b) abundance of food and water ( wich has been achieved through technology ), sexual dimorphism ( in the behaavioral sense ) is broken ( females don't need either protection nor providing from males ) . Now given that modern societies are entering stagnation phase ( drop on birth rates, probably dropping even more after male contraception is introduced into the market ), I see no reason to see the current situation as an anomaly ( given it also happens on lesser mamals like mice or rats ), but more like a normal development of human societies. In any case, you are still assuming each gender behaviors based on sexual dimorphism are unmutable and can not diverge into other types of behaviours when physical differences in genders become irrelevant in their contribution to social dynamics.
You know, I disagreed with this for years. I was married to a wussy husband who would do whatever I told him. Then I married one who became very abusive when he drank. Then I had an LTR with a guy 9 years older that just expected me to obey him because he was a man and always criticized me. I have now been in a 7 yr relationship with a man that earned my respect and I will do anything to please him. I obey him for the most part. When I do something he doesn't approve of, he gives me a 'look', and I know exactly what it means, and immediately correct whatever I've done wrong. He opens doors, puts his arm in front of me to protect me from possible danger, feeds me, talks to me, respects my opinion, etc. For the first time in my 50 years, I WANT him to be the leader, be the boss, have the final say. Just listen to me, and at least consider the things I have to say before making the decision, but whatever it may be, I will abide by it. I feel loved, cherished, secure, and protected. Thank you, I loved this article :)
The BDSM part here is a bit unclear. Are you saying that people practice bdsm more so now than before because it's the only way they can experience the dominant-submissive part of a relationship that should be prevalent throughout day to day tasks but isn't anymore?
Yes. BDSM deals with expression of this "to the extreme". Most of us should find it unattractive, because it's basically people who can't get off without doing something extreme (be it painful, gross, ceremonial...). But there are lots of people in there who are only "into it", because they want what I described. Just vanilla folks who are no different that 99% of human population, but call themselves different because feminism says they are. That's how BDSM becomes palatable with the general public. Even if you mix all of this up, you can still make it appealing to the majority of people because of what I described.
This just seems strange to me, I mean what right do I have to intervene in a girls life in such a way? "Women find comfort, safety and emotional care they need so much under a man's authority. Left to her own devices, with her partner "not caring what she does because she's independent" a woman will easily fall into traps of her own insecurity feeling unloved, or simply detach from him and turn her attention to another." won't she fight you if you try to xare too much. Im soooo confused by all this. How am i supposed to know If a girl wants me to take the lead. When I do they always say im too attached. As you can guess I've never had a girlfriend because of all this. None were ever interested in me even though I have a great life and im a successful Commercial pilot.
-This just seems strange to me, I mean what right do I have to intervene in a girls life in such a way?
If a woman dates you, she has the fruits of your work and your LIFE in her hands. I'm pretty sure that gives you the right to hold HER FREEDOM in yours. You can't protect a person who doesn't listen to you. You also can't provide for a person who doesn't care for how you think your resources should be utilised.
Women WANT these things from men, women DEMAND these things from men and they GET them from men. (provision and protection)
Only, because of feminism, men are being lied to. You're being told women aren't taking anything. Women are independent. Women want it that way.
Lies.
That's why feminism is full of contradictions.
To make a woman TRULY happy, to make her chase you, you have to give her what she NEEDS on a visceral level, not what she SAYS SHE NEEDS on a superficial one.
-won't she fight you if you try to xare too much. Im soooo confused by all this.
Of course she will fight you. Authority requires punishment for a reason. It needs pain to be maintained as well as pleasure.
A tech nerd needs Larry Page to have a job in a functioning company like Google, but that doesn't mean the employee won't mind being fired, losing money, working more, if they go against the boss.
A student needs a teacher, but that doesn't mean the student won't mind being told to sit down, shut up and speak when spoken to.
A child needs a parent, but that doesn't mean it won't mind being told to eat the veggies, study, be home by 6 and work out when told.
Punishment is NEEDED to maintain order precisely because people will NOT LIKE to always go your way. But because they experience benefits of that same order you created as a leader (knowledge, great job, healthy childhood) they will LOVE YOU for opposing them. For women this is so instinctive, some even enjoy the punishment.
"How am i supposed to know If a girl wants me to take the lead. "
You look for 2 things: If she a female? Is she heterosexual?
If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then she wants you to take the lead.
-As you can guess I've never had a girlfriend because of all this. None were ever interested in me even though I have a great life and im a successful Commercial pilot.
And guys like you is why I wrote this article (as well single cat ladies you guys will never marry). I hope you now understand what was missing and you will fix it by learning to lead women, or seeking out a man who does it right to teach you.
This is interesting indeed. I've always felt like i was missing something. I can get lots and lots of dates, but they never follow through or stop texting so everyone says to just drop those girls? Is this correct? I had one girl over the summer actually come after ME! she was gorgeous and she made all the moves and perused me. She actually gave me my first kiss! After every date she would tell me more how she liked me. I was in heaven. We went out 5 times for a month and then randomly one day when I told i wanted to see her agian she then gave me the "were just friends speech" and burned me emotionally. She said she thought i was getting too attached and wanted a relationship which she wasn't ready for. I said i wasn't pushing one and respected her boundaries and that I cared about her and would be here for her as a friend. I didn't want to be push or creepy by persuing her because that always got me burned when I was in highschool. She didn't even want to stay as friends
I actually agree with you, for the most part. Wouldn't you say modern feminism is a result of war? Men sent other men to fight, therefore taking them out the labor force. In order to take care of their children, women were forced to work. Once women realized that they could single-handedly support their families, the provider was no longer necessary. Men, after returning from the battlefield, expected their homes to be in shambles, but to their surprise the women were actually able to man the fort. Seeing that women could do most of what men could do was the start of the diminishing gender roles.
"Once women realized that they could single-handedly support their families, the provider was no longer necessary." Actually that's not true. Feminists weren't a prevalent force even when women could be college educated and had enough societal support to be able to leave their man if they so wished. But back then, women simply chose not to do so and became mothers and homemakers instead.
Feminist propaganda didn't "free women" to do what they want. It shamed them out of the kitchen and into an office. Feminism took female free will by applying social pressure, just like some societies did that by shaming women who didn't fit into the mold.
To a feminist: You don't want a man? Don't care for a family? It's great you have your freedom and no one is pressuring you to do those things today. But now women like us are being pressured and told we're worthless unless we act like you. Today it's the same, only in the opposite direction.
Good take. Very well considered. Great to hear this from a girl, when guys say things like this, we get called misogynistic. There is no conflict between men and women except what we culturally create. We're supposed to be happy together.
Interesting there hasn't been any female responses.
Because they all know (or feel) it's true. It hits them on a deep level and even though some of them like to spew contradictory nonsense and cliches, it's hard to do so when they feel naked and vulnerable in front of what they're reading.
I think that all that "chivalry" is just a thing meant to degrade men into being servants inferior to women. In that case it seems being a women is like winning a lottery. "So, now what? You provide for us, you die for us and all we have to do is have a vagina? Well..." <-- good quote! Shows to what chivalry leads to: woman as a demi-god and a man as her worshiper. This "chivalry" develops entitlement mentality in woman - she starts to think like in ancien regime aristocrat, who thought that the ones who were not well born were worse sort of people. For me it is a truly revolting idea.
"Normally, in exchange for provision and a shield that is a man's life, the woman makes a trade offering something in return: her freedom." Sorry, but I won't exchange my life for a girl's freedom or anything else for that matter... It's not worth it. What good does having a slave/fortune/fame/etc... has for a dead. And what if I do not desire having a slave. Anyway, I want a wife that loves me, not a woman that stick with me because of some crazy trade/deal: life for freedom or whatever.
by the way. if having authority over women = "More burden and possible blame you take on for whatever happens", than man truly gets nothing but trouble out of relationship with woman. Summa summarum: this article is just discouraging men to believe in female-side love.
Genesis and 1 Timothy are all I really need to know on where the idea of chivalry came from, and why it's necessary. The rest of this is postulation.
And you know why nice guys are such pushovers? Because they're told to assert themselves, then ganged up on and bullied back into submission when they do. If not by her, then by a posse that she always seems to be able to pull out of the woodwork.
"Because they're told to assert themselves, then ganged up on and bullied back into submission when they do. " If you're being pulled back into submission, you never asserted yourself.
@crayven: I don't think she does. She doesn't understand the part about the posse. Asserting myself too much around such crazy women only leads to the posse showing up. And no matter what I say or do then, I'm always treated like the Frankenstein monster.
You can be assertive all you want. But when a mob comes after you, being assertive in words makes no difference. Mobs don't care about reason. They are there for one purpose: intimidation.
What am I supposed to do? Knock them all out? Break their noses before they break my legs? Only if you're willing to pay my bail and my lawyer. When I'm confronted by that level of crazy, I prefer to remove myself from the situation before it gets physical. And trust me, when others don't want to respect what I have to say, I have often seen them be quick to threaten getting physical, no matter how polite I am. Especially where I live now. The small towns near Lansing are not my idea of "high society," let's put it that way.
Then give me a concrete definition. Because when I ask others for one, they evade answering concretely. What I do understand is respect, or lack thereof. I understand you're either a big deal, a pawn, or a target. And if you become a target, and the big deal's appetite is sufficiently whetted, no amount of anything will keep the pawns off you.
To influence people you first must learn to express yourself properly. To know how to candidly put your thoughts and feelings out there in order to influence how other people behave. This means to learn to talk and say concrete things, to learn to give yourself permission to speak up and to do so honestly without self censorship. To take responsability for your thoughts and feelings. If you feel like I'm a retarded loudmouth cunt, you say: Shut up, you RETARDED loudmouth CUNT! By doing so, you are being honest. This also goes for expressing all thoughts you may have.
This automatically sets a precedent for people to know you have a stance, influence and expectations. You enable them to meet your expectations by behaving in a way that lets them know what you want, think and feel. It allows them to connect to you socially.
It would take a lot more provocation before I would address you by such terminology. I seldom spew such words even on my mortal enemies. I was raised to give respect to get respect. But to know when to fold 'em.
When I feel that someone is wrong on the issues, I state the evidence for my convictions. If they are being nonsensical, I deconstruct the argument, reserving judgment for the actual individual for when I feel I am left with no choice.
I have been told that when I'm being taken advantage of, I need to speak up and report it more often. Not ignore it, put up with it for so long, or try to always handle it myself. Thing is, I don't always know who will listen - let alone be able / willing to act. I'm that way with sicknesses too. I will wait until it's unbearable to see a doctor.
You have to learn to be demanding. And that's not just telling people to do stuff, but telling them anything at all in a demanding way (i. e. Candid/influential way) There is a difference between: "I ok on that test I guess..." and "Fuck, how would I know? I was scrambling half the time, the stupid test was way too long for a moron like me. Just don't ask me you asshole, I don't want to start praying now."
Demanding expression and leading people to see how you truly feel inside will allow you to influence them. Once that is established, directing their behavior will come automatically. And with women, once you set this precedent after initial struggle all women provide, the woman will naturally begin to deffer to you and will learn she can't fuck with you like she tried to do. Which will result in attraction.
You don't always know who will listen because you're a neurotic, politically correct faggot no one can ever listen to. Just reading your "diplomatic" complaint is putting me to sleep. I am not telling you to curse for cursing sake, I'm telling you to put forward what you think and feel for the sake of influence on other people. Self expression limited to "well I act polite and diplomatic another people are just evil and intolerant" is a coward's approach to socialization. They are not too intolerant, you're just too spineless to learn to direct them.
So having respect means not having a spine? Did I say I give in when they are wrong? Having a spine does not mean being verbally abusive. At the same time, I don't like being ganged up on. Especially not at places like work, where asserting myself your way could get me fired.
You associate candid expression with abuse. You think in terms of what is nice instead of in terms of what is correct and practical. You think you're respecting a person when hiding what you really think and lying to them... Those are all wrong and there has been 30 years of female influence to shape you into a pussy you are right now. I can't undo that, only another man can.
I strongly doubt I could have articulated this better than you have here and I'm fairly comfortable with my ability to do so, in a general sense. The only thing I would add is the concept of "sperm competition" and how that relates to male and female sexuality.
I'm sorry but that's the most out-of-touch with reality concept I've ever seen. In other words, our evolutionary past had programmed women to seek sex with different men in short succession, and have their sperm compete intra-vaginally for the right of paternity? Are you kidding me? Not only does insemination NOT work that way, sexual selection doesn't either. Not to mention multiple partner seeking in a woman is a sign of emotional and psychological distress/attempt to compensate for something. It's NOT a natural/desireable mating behavior.
A woman without an ability/opportunity to monopolise a provider, seeking to ONLY have sex and have a baby, would go for the best male she could find and that it's.
I'm not totally sure I understand what you're saying. I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm just saying it's a little more complex than that.
Females might not necessarily seek out mates for the sake of sperm competition (although in some instances they probably do) but males will certainly seek them out and that's where the concept of males being territorial comes from.
Even if their primary mate has ejulated in them it takes around 72 hours for the sperm to reach the egg and during that time it would certainly allow for another male to ejaulate in her as well causing a race to the finish as she can not be impregnated by multiple males.
I'd imagine this is probably why sometimes females, without a mate, dress and act provocatively until they attract a mate or get pregnant.
"Even if their primary mate has ejulated in them it takes around 72 hours for the sperm to reach the egg and during that time it would certainly allow for another male to ejaulate in her as well causing a race to the finish as she can not be impregnated by multiple males." That's NOT how it works. If there is a lot of sperm in there insemination happend at random. It's not a "competition", thus can't be any form of selection process. Has nothing to do with evolution and that guy is so full of shit. Psychology in general is full of shit.
Evolutionary psychology is basically evolutionary theory explaining behavior. It's more evolution than "psychology". But psychology as a science is NOT one. It's pseudoscience and psychologists themselves can't agree on 70% of what they present to the public. Psychologist studies are the reason bullshit like feminism got credibility. It's bogus and anyone who likes science should NEVER look at it without lots of scepticism.
@inamorata huh? That is how it works. What I'm saying isn't psychology it's evolutionary biology and it is a scientific fact. That's why I sent you those links. I agree with you though about psychology. I'm not overly fond of the soft sciences (like psychology) because they are not always 'correct' per-say.
However, biology is not a soft science, it is a hard science and what I told you is not debatable. It is a fact. It's a large part of why semen is not made up of one sperm, it is made up of millions (give or take, I forget the exact number) that race to the egg, probably because the strongest/fastest are in theory the most viable.
They've known this conceptually since Darwin I believe. It's not new. Again, I'm NOT saying you're wrong. I'm just giving you more information to look into. I agree with you for the most part.
Alright, you're right. Even thought I studied evolution on basics, evolutionary psychology and biology, I've never gone deeper into evolutionary biology. But this sperm competition thing doesn't explain as much as you seem to claim. =/ It explains genitalia shape. Sperm number and shape. But since the insemination still part luck, part sperm, other behavioral patterns described by evolutionary psychology stand. Yes I see now, you're adding to it, not disputing my point. Which brings up the question, why are you adding it? What is your point?
I mean what I describe is behavior and desires all females exude when seeking out best life possible. What you described is a promiscuous behavior that does not relate to monogamy and ideal partner seeking humans do. This is the "fuck as many people as you can" time of crisis behavior I mentioned. I'm talking about what women want, not what women want when pushed into a corner and have to look for a new way to fulfill biological urges.
@inamorata I wasn't really looking to be "right" about anything in this instance as I basically already agree with you. I was just giving you more information to look into. My point was two-fold, number one I thought it was interesting and thought you might think so also.
And secondly, that although women may not necessarily directly seek/pursue sex with more than one male (due to the presumably evolutionary benefits of monogamy) their more submissive natural traits and their desire for sexuality would allow a male to copulate with her, willingly or otherwise, UNLESS she somehow prevents it or her territorial/protective male prevents it. And let's be honest here most of the animal kingdom does not exactly have 'consensual' sex.
So what message are you trying to send out? Stay home and take care of the children and listen to your husband? I'm very curious :)
Not every guy is exactly as you've said. Some are selfish and don't know how to be a provider. And I personally I wouldn't give that kind of power to someone who doesn't know what he's doing. I agree with your article, surprisingly. It was a great read.
No, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to specifically arrange their life. I am only telling you what you naturally need in your life.
Like telling you to put veggies in your diet, but I won't give you a specific diet to follow. Everyone makes their own diet. The one most suitable for their body. =)
Excellent take, i agree with pretty much all you said. Feminists are confused as to how they want to be treated, their biology wants men to be authoritative, but their feminist ideology makes them believe they need to be treated the same as men are.
One thing i must add though, it needs to be emphasized that women would not get very far at all without men, men are significantly superior to women in most areas, women can get by decently today on their own thanks the many inventions and quality of life improvements made by men of science. But even so women on their own would not be able to sustain a modern society on the level that we have in the west even if they could reproduce asexually, women are to weak mentally and physically to sustain it, they cannot do manual labor to nearly the same degree that men do, and same with the risky and dangerous jobs, mining, working with waterpipes, fossil fuels etc and most women dont even have the mental strenght to even endure these types of jobs for any extended period of time. the most brilliant men in the world are quite far above the most brilliant women. If women want this kind of special treatment they need to accept the fact that they will never be respected on the same level as men.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say for years! Only you worded it much better. Thank you for this beautifully written piece. Perhaps people who come across this will change their minds about the way they go about relationships :).
The absolute truth, that a lot of people won't accept, but personally i blame women for being complicated as all fuck, even top anthropologists can't agree on what women wan't. All i can say is, women want to be protected not to protect, women want to be desired not to desire, women wan't to be the focal point even if they are not in control.
nah female sexual desire (specifically) is very narcissistic, women don't sexually desire men near as much as the arousal caused by being desired by a man, in fact, in regards to visual stimuli "straight' women where more sexually attracted to other women than to men, www.indiana.edu/.../...ers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf , www.psychologytoday.com/.../what-do-women-really-want , there is a lot of work done on female narcissism in regards to desire and in general.
The first link is scientifically sound peer reviewed research, read it, you wouldn't be able to argue against it, why are women most aroused by lesbian p*rn? why does a naked women arouse supposedly straight women more than a naked man? pure sexual narcissism! why can a man only be aroused when there is women in the content? while women mostly get off to women and themselves.
It's psychologist peer reviewed bullshit like this that allowed feminism to rise to power. Feminist rhetoric is always based on "peer reviewed studies".
cognitive dissonance? it was scientific, blood flow, heart rate, fmri scan and a photoplesmograph (will produce the most accurate reading of female arousal) was used , why is lesbian p*rn the most popular genre to the female demographic?, https://www.pornhub.com/insights/what-women-want/ pffffft you know i am right, bring an actual argument against mine, instead of claiming your field is absolute
@amphet11 @inamorata She's still mostly right. Publishing a paper does not necessarily mean it has been 'peer-reviewed' and even if it had that wouldn't necessarily make it valid. It would be a psychological theory at best, of which there are most likely quite a few.
There are probably way too many variables in the human psyche to truly determine exactly how the human mind ticks but that isn't going to stop scientists from trying to find that correlation (rather than causation). All of this is why psychological principles have changed so much in the past and continue to change ongoing.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions