Post: #76

This is a sea hag, similar to those faced by Odysseus. Women like her are almost worse than feminists, because their siren songs dupe so many men. Why is her list of expectations so different from a feminist's list of expectations? Changing tires for clueless, unappreciative women may be more honorable than self flagellation for clueless, unappreciative women, but why do either?

Here's the difference: Put up with enough of her shit, and she might call you manly. Put up with enough of a feminist's shit and she might call you evolved. Don't put up with any of their shit and you might get laid.

Post: #77

(04-01-2016 09:28 PM)Thoroughbred Wrote:  When AB rolls in like this:

It's more against the ideas

That's always my intention. I'm not trying to tear down the Captain. It's highly-likely a future post from him on another topic might offer me perspective or wisdom I haven't considered, and I look forward to reading it. I simply have 45 years of social interaction with women under my belt to have noted the predictable patterns of complaint they use to gain their desired outcomes.

Interact with enough women, and by my age you've heard 95% of every conversation small talk / political conversation you will have in future. (I suspect what makes men like me attractive to women is the ability to trip-up their expectations of how familiar, rote conversations usually play out in their mind by disrupting the script in a frustratingly-charming way).

I've been hearing groups of women voice this particular-complaint - 'Where are the old-fashioned men?' - in social and work circles since the mid-90's, when women en masse realised how much they despised the SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) they'd spent the last decade demanding men shape themselves into.

Observe the patterns enough, and you'll realise that women have no idea what they want, which is why it's foolish to take their complaints serious. However, the patterns have taught me exactly what they always actually want: more than what they currently-have.

To illustrate:

I was gaming a Polish Girl recently - the conversation had turned unexpectedly-spiritual, probably due to our shared experience of us both nursing dying parents - and I bought up the fact that because I've trained myself to not need luxury to be happy, the universe always seems to provides for me.

She thought about this and basically said "This will sound foolish, but many times in life I've found myself realising I've gotten exactly what I wished for at sometime during the past."

I recognise this. "Funny how that happens, isn't it?"

She paused, gathering her thoughts. "Well, that's the thing..."

I lock eyes. "... it's never exactly what you expected, is it?"

"How did you know?"

Whilst, admittedly, I also find this a truth of life, but this process takes a greater toll on women when filtered through the tempest of emotional unrest that sits within their core, resulting in a sense of eternal dissatisfaction. Nothing given will ever be enough.

The best course of action: when they complain, just Mock / Frustrate / Infuriate and Deflect with the tone of someone who isn't at all invested in needing to win the argument, because he doesn't take it remotely-seriously to begin with.

Post: #78

^^^

SNAGS! Never heard that one before....

Post: #79

That was the big society-wide shit test of the 80s and early 90s. The "sensitive new age male" who shared his feelings with women and cried in public. A lot of men failed that shit test. I was in grade school then; that's my excuse.

Post: #80

Post: #81

(04-02-2016 10:25 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Hahahaha

That's brilliant!

Post: #82

While I still think she's a cunt, it's interesting that some of the topics that the manosphere has been discussing for at least the last 6 years have filtered into her speech.

• "womens-studies classes dedicated to demonizing masculinity, so there's one sympton of a larger disease"
• "having a beard and wearing a flannel shirt does not make you a man if you can't change a tire and are scared of the dark"
• "Maybe it's how boys are raised these days. Fatherless homes and no real role models. It's hard to be a man when there's no man around."
  

In the case of changing a tire, I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she does not mean that literally. I think she just wanted a quick example of traditional masculinity, especially since she brought up being afraid of the dark afterwards.

I would say this video indicates that we have made significant inroads into the mass culture.


Unfortunately, she hasn't quite finished her journey to true enlightenment.
"A real man knows how to handle a strong woman"

Yes, by putting her in her place and then committing to the woman who knows to keep her endless shit testing in check.

Honey, a real man doesn't want a "strong" woman. He built himself into a real man so that he could have a feminine woman. The "strong" he wants is the strength to bear and raise children so that they have a good start in life, the strength to keep her weight under control and her appearance pleasing, the strength to stay committed during inevitable tough times in marriage, and the strength to control your hypergamy (which you clearly lack from your ball busting, you go girl, attitude) as he is expected to control his polygamy for the sake of the marriage and children

Post: #83

(04-02-2016 09:16 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  SNAGS! Never heard that one before....

I'm hoping you were lucky enough to miss the whole Robert Bly Drum Circle Mythopoetic Masculinity revival of the 90's. *shudder*

Take a hipster, remove the personality void created by a narcissistic, careerist mother, add the spiritual aspirations of a pot-smoking 60's hippie mother, and you pretty much have what created a SNAG. The difference being Surfers and 90's Male Tribalists could still get laid with hot girls. I'd be greatly-surprised if your average Goony Bearded Journalist / Tech Worker knows the touch of (non-obese) pussy before thirty.

I looked up some ancient 'Women demanding SNAGs' articles, out of curiousity. Female Typists were making Entitlement Lists even back then. The first two points with accompanying paragraphs of one of them are all you need to understand women, and why the rest of the list is irrelevant:

1. Never view women as inferiors

i.e. we have equal standing, give us the respect you give other men

2. Act like a gentleman and keep chivalry alive

i.e. carry our heavy groceries

Of course, to men, this reads as:



If you logically-point out the hypocrisy, they won't see it. Note that a good 18 years exist between the article I was reading, and Tomi's silly little video above, but it's the same argument: I'm a modern, liberated woman free of traditional expectations of female behaviour, but you still have to be a traditional man when it suits me.

Remember, if you play this game of meeting what women demand of you, you will exist in a state of constant flux that mirrors their core emotional unrest. I know many pussy-whipped men who are always eager jump to heel, all of whom think they're doing the right thing, and they are all utterly-miserable, because the behaviour that makes a woman happy in one situation will make her angry and resentful in another situation, five minutes later.

Post: #84

(04-02-2016 10:49 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 10:25 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Hahahaha

That's brilliant!

LOL women were already making fun of SNAGs even at the beginning of the SNAG era. How did so many men fall for this shit?

Post: #85

(04-02-2016 03:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Remember, if you play this game of meeting what women demand of you, you will exist in a state of constant flux that mirrors their core emotional unrest. I know many pussy-whipped men who are always eager jump to heel, all of whom think they're doing the right thing, and they are all utterly-miserable, because the behaviour that makes a woman happy in one situation will make her angry and resentful in another situation, five minutes later.

AB,

If only I had learned this when I was in my 20s, I would have been far ahead of the game. It took me much longer to really understand this. Ah, well. Better late than never.

Post: #86

I was astonished to learn that I had watched a portion of an interview Tomi Lahren did with Tommy Sotomayer a while back. I remember at the time thinking she was not my type, but I absolutely did not find her as aggressively unattractive as I did when I watched her recent video rant about men.

It really drove home to me the importance of attitude in a woman.

(04-02-2016 11:22 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  Honey, a real man doesn't want a "strong" woman. He built himself into a real man so that he could have a feminine woman.

Somebody chisel this in stone somewhere: "A real man doesn't want a 'strong, independent woman.' He wants a feminine woman."

Post: #87

I like to use this sort of stuff as a LTR shit test, if you will. Showed it to my LTR and asked what she thinks. She immediately said "it's not a woman's place to make demands of men like that".

Someone said earlier that this is the harder to see difference between masculine women and feminine women. Very true. Despite the looks (this one is slender and on the attractive side), it is the attitude that gives them away. Loud, demanding, boasting, nagging... all very unattractive.

Post: #88

(04-02-2016 04:41 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  If only I had learned this when I was in my 20s, I would have been far ahead of the game. It took me much longer to really understand this. Ah, well. Better late than never.

The grace of knowledge seems to operate on a different schedule for all of us. What matters is that you can recognise you were graced, rather than rejecting it. There's still many areas where I'm waiting for illumination, and your writing always lights lanterns for me. Thank you.

There's really two choices for men:

1) Meet her unrealistic demands, with the hope that she will reward you with sex for doing so.

2) Ignore her unrealistic demands, with the certainty that she will reward you will sex for doing so.

The former generates a blanket of threatening storm clouds that never quite disperse, until one day you find your house became flooded despite the absence of rain. The latter is a storm that rages with violent fury, but soon blows itself out, and any creeping dampness went to her panties rather than the basement.

Too many men make the mistake of thinking if they acquiesce to complaint, peace follows. They fail to understand peace is largely-impossible due to the differences in how the sexes think. Their emotional waves will swamp you if you're just quietly-floating, so you need to learn to surf.

Post: #89

(04-02-2016 03:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm a modern, liberated woman free of traditional expectations of female behaviour, but you still have to be a traditional man when it suits me

Great posts as always.

I'd add that she lists demands, but offers absolutely nothing of her own.

Sure, she's attractive, and of course that is very important.

But that she's a ONS should clue her in as to why she can't find a good man, and the reason is, in watching the video, she offers nothing else in return.

She wants a masculine man who can change a tire? Is this while she's making dinner? She doesn't say.

She doesn't want a pansy? Fair enough, does this mean she'll be a supportive, loyal partner? She doesn't say.

It's only about what she wants. And as well stated in this thread, men don't want a "strong" woman, who like this woman, have an aggressive, whiny attitude. Men, those who haven't been brainwashed by our feminized media, want a feminine woman. Either way, as I often say, men will determine what men want in a partner, not acquiesce to a list of demands by women.

Just the other night, a woman in my social circle was giving me shit for my views on masculinity and feminism. My response was "I can change a tire and do basic auto and home maintenance. I can also cook better than 95% of you and pretty much any other modern woman, and I'll bet my home is cleaner. What the fuck can any of you do?"

Again, at least this woman is physically attractive. And that alone may be able to enable her to snag a decent husband/provider. But I also won't be surprised in five years to see her special on "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?"

Post: #90

I've learned more in this thread than I would have in possibly years of in-person interaction. Thanks, AB.

Post: #91

(04-03-2016 11:43 AM)CRR Wrote:  Just the other night, a woman in my social circle was giving me shit for my views on masculinity and feminism. My response was "I can change a tire and do basic auto and home maintenance. I can also cook better than 95% of you and pretty much any other modern woman, and I'll bet my home is cleaner. What the fuck can any of you do?"

Remember to couch these sort of outbursts with humour. The tone you want to achieve is of not taking her argument remotely-seriously.

"I keep trim, dress well, am a great cook and keep a clean house. Just goes to show that a traditional man is superior at being a traditional woman."

Post: #92

Dang it, you're right.

I did say what I said in a neutral, practically indifferent tone, maintaining my frame. But yes, your phrasing is better.

Post: #93

(04-03-2016 03:55 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 11:43 AM)CRR Wrote:  Just the other night, a woman in my social circle was giving me shit for my views on masculinity and feminism. My response was "I can change a tire and do basic auto and home maintenance. I can also cook better than 95% of you and pretty much any other modern woman, and I'll bet my home is cleaner. What the fuck can any of you do?"

Remember to couch these sort of outbursts with humour. The tone you want to achieve is of not taking her argument remotely-seriously.

"I keep trim, dress well, am a great cook and keep a clean house. Just goes to show that a traditional man is superior at being a traditional woman."

Only follow this advice if you're having a 1 on 1 conversation. If you're arguing in front of a group, a harsher, more clear and succinct tone, like CRR used, is the way to go.

Post: #94

(04-04-2016 02:42 AM)Walker Wrote:  Only follow this advice if you're having a 1 on 1 conversation. If you're arguing in front of a group, a harsher, more clear and succinct tone, like CRR used, is the way to go.

Some points to consider:

I always prefer to keep the party going. Harshness runs the risk of appearing angry, bitter, over-defensive or deeply-wounded by the accusation being levelled at you.

This always triggers suspicion about your sexual experience in women. This is the favourite attacking point of Feminists: you only think that way because you're angry at women for not wanting to sleep with you.

Laugh it off. You're saying to the group that you're used to women's bullshit, and secure in yourself and who you are.

Save arguing with furious conviction for your interactions with men. The way we'd talk to other men is always going to read as a form of bullying against a woman to observers, no matter how much of a Raging Cunt she is being in the moment, and groups naturally favour the protection of women.

Social settings are easily manipulated.

1) Make light of the accusation

This is a subtle implication to observers that you're not taking this person seriously, which suggests that the accusation is false, so they shouldn't take them seriously either. Cheekiness, old school charm, down-home folksiness, roguishness. Pick the weapon that suits you.

Take Milo, for example. A feminist will attack him, and he'll simply say "Oh, don't be so silly, darling", and immediately move-on to continue his point, like their interruption was pointless and silly. This is why he has a huge female fan base. He reads as traditionally-alpha to women, gay or not.

The exception to my suggestions would be the sardonic Alan Rickman-style withering putdown. It's still making light of the other person, but with added cruelty. I'd consider that is master-level game with huge sexual power over Leftist women. Recognise if you have that ability or not. I don't.

2) Let Haranguers harangue

Over-serious bullying is social death, particularly in a casual situation, like a party or bar. The cloud of buzzkill Ms. Debbie Downer projects is a natural social repellent. The angrier she gets while the calmer and more charming you get naturally moves people towards your side.

3) Humour masks counterattacks as the attacks they are

Sarcastic humour, dry humour, observational humour. Avoid movie quotes and weak pop culture references - that's progressive male humour. It softens the fact that you're slipping them the knife. In particular, people to the left side of the political spectrum are very easy to sway, not by presenting the most rational, factual argument, but arguments that appeal to their narcissism: if they repeat what you just said in another social situation, will it make them seem clever and funny?

Remember, they don't want to understand the complexities of any situation, which would involve open, intelligent discussion and the risk of them being discovered to not be Clever and Funny. They are looking for how to shut down discussion to steer the conversation back onto safer topics. A Clever and Funny soundbite is the tool they use, even when they're not actually either. (See: 'Really?')

This is where Brits have a natural appeal to the Left: they 'sound' clever, so they only have to be moderately-funny to have their sound bites repeated ad nauseum.

Women don't gravitate to the Intelligent Man in the group: they're attracted to the Clever Man. The one they're always frustrated by because they can never seem to fluster him.

The unflustered man keeps the party going. See my logic?

Post: #95

Quote:The way we'd talk to other men is always going to read as a form of bullying against a woman to observers, no matter how much of a Raging Cunt she is being in the moment, and groups naturally favour the protection of women.

The instinct to want to protect women can be overridden, and my experience in real life is that it often has been. Women like Tomi Lahren have become so common, and have been mistreating their close people for so long, that when bitchy, contrarian words come out of their mouth, strangers around her think -

"I once knew a woman or two who acted like that. She was a horrible burden on my life. I don't know this person in front of me but I already hate her."

From that perspective, an outsider coming in and bullying the mouthy woman is seen as a refreshing change of pace, not a gaffe.

Post: #96

This bitch is really basic. She's not hard on the eyes, but her obviously fake bleached hair and pounds of makeup isn't really doing it for me. WB, but would never LTR in a million years. Gag.

She's just latching onto the latest trend which seems to be hot, ultra-"conservative", gun-totting, ISIS-smearing, female talking heads. They all pretty much look and act the same: Tomi, Katherine Timpf, Katie Pavlich, Dana Loesch (sp?), and the rest of the younger Fox girls. They're just wannabe Ann Coulters with about 1/10000 of the intellect, credentials, and wit.

Post: #97

(04-16-2016 01:07 AM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  This bitch is really basic. She's not hard on the eyes, but her obviously fake bleached hair and pounds of makeup isn't really doing it for me. WB, but would never LTR in a million years. Gag.

She's just latching onto the latest trend which seems to be hot, ultra-"conservative", gun-totting, ISIS-smearing, female talking heads. They all pretty much look and act the same: Tomi, Katherine Timpf, Katie Pavlich, Dana Loesch (sp?), and the rest of the younger Fox girls. They're just wannabe Ann Coulters with about 1/10000 of the intellect, credentials, and wit.

Resurrecting this thread to note that Roosh has also spotted the above trend. "Why The Female “Anti-Feminist” Is A Feminist In Disguise" - http://www.rooshv.com/why-the-female-ant...n-disguise

Also, some of the "conservative" women mentioned above also signed a letter calling for Trump's campaign manager to be fired, based on a "conservative" female reporter's mere accusation. H/T to MikeCF: http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/30/...ive-media/

Post: #98

I'm surprised in perusing this thread that I have not seen one comment on the first thing that stood out about her when I was flipping channels and realized there was a new "conservative" station on (OANN):

She has that monotone, robotic cadence.

You will come across this occasionally, incidentally I just did with a girl who was actually hotter in person than in the pictures I saw on an app. When I met her, I was like "I guess this is what explains why you are good looking but on apps" (she was 30).

Did you guys seriously not pick up on that as the "this human is odd" spider sense?

Post: #99

This direction this thread has gone, discussing women who are pleasant, feminine, and traditional in nature, has made me ponder something that I'm pretty sure I've written about on here before.

I'm used to chicks like this Tommi girl. Basic non-domesticated women who believe they are entitled to whatever they want. Women who were not bred to take care of men, cook, clean, and generally be sweet, loyal, and submissive. I'm used to women who are proud of their college education, their travel experience, their career, how much money they make, how independent they are, how city-broken they are, etc.

What I'm saying is, at almost 30 years old, I have developed deep-seated habits and expectations of women and myself that I would have to unlearn and reprogram if I were to be with a traditional, subservient, feminine woman. I like the idea of it, but I've barely ever experienced it.

I was dating a Jamaican girl for a while who was very much like that. She was very family oriented, loved to cook, always dressed well, and was relatively sexually reserved. When she would stay over she would automatically make me breakfast while I was in the shower. I never once asked her to, she never told me she was going to, and she never made a plate for herself. She would just make herself busy taking care of me while I was doing something else.

I loved it, but I noticed I did not quite know how to react to it. If she was making dinner, toiling away in the kitchen, I would feel out of place. I felt guilty if I would go off to do some other activity while she was cooking. I felt as though I had to include her somehow so instead of going off into another room to work on music or just put on some Netflix to kill time - I would put on some music, try to make some conversation, walk into the kitchen often to flirt and check on her. It was at that point I realized I had been successfully programmed to feel guilty about letting a woman care for me.

Post: #100

I know exactly what you mean GS. I would keep women who cooked and did the dishes for me, company, and I never realized until reading your statement that I would usually get a funny vibe from them. As if to seemingly non-verbally say "what are you doing in my domain?"

I had to actually force myself away and deal with this awkward guilt that somehow, someway that woman in my kitchen must be trusted enough to do the basics without me around. And they could. But what a totally awkward feeling in your gut telling you that shit.

On another note, that SNAG acronym is actually very funny. Perhaps I could make a shirt denouncing that I'm not some new age puss and of course wear it around. #No SNAG.