Post: #1

I recently read the short book 'The Manipulated Man' by Esther Vilar, and it is excellent. You don't need to read my rendition of her, you can simply read the excerpts below (the subheadings are my own creation).

Only Women Matter To A Woman

Quote:Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world.

Of course, a woman will always be pleased if a man turns to look at her - and if he is well dressed or drives an expensive sports car, so much the better. Her pleasure may be compared to that of a shareholder who finds that his stocks have risen. It will be a matter of complete indifference to a woman if he is attractive or looks intelligent. A shareholder is hardly likely to notice the color of his dividend checks.

But if another woman should turn to look - a rare occurrence, for her own judgment is infinitely more remorseless than that of a man - her day is made. She has achieved the impossible - the recognition, admiration, and `love' of other women.

Yes, only women exist in a woman's world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice - these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women's standards correspond to those in other women's heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman -and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points.

*************

Why Men Put The Pussy On A Pedestal:

Quote:A man needs a woman because, as we shall see, he needs something to which he may subject himself. But at the same time he must retain his self-respect. This leads him to endow woman with qualities which will justify his subjection. As woman has never yet made any attempt to use her wits, he cannot call her intelligent, but he gets close to it by creating the concept of `woman's intuition.' So, in the absence of any other real qualities, he calls her beautiful.

*************

Why Women Are An Enigma To Men

Quote:HER STUPIDITY MAKES WOMAN DIVINE

The most important requirements for woman's divinity are, however, her propensity to masquerade and her stupidity. A system must either overwhelm its believers with its greatly superior wisdom or confuse them with its incomprehensibility As the first possibility is unavailable to women, they take advantage of the second. Their masquerade causes them to appear strange and mysterious to men; their stupidity
makes them inaccessible to scrutiny. While intelligence shows itself in actions that are reasonable and logical, hence permits measurement, predictability, and control, stupidity shows itself in actions that are completely unreasonable, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Women are protected by a screen of pomp, mummery, and mystification as much as any Pope or dictator: they cannot be unmasked and will increase their power unhindered, gaining strength as they go. In return man is guaranteed, in the long term, a divinity in which he can deeply believe

*************

Why Celebrity Gossip Is Ubiquitous

Quote:Women's stupidity is so overwhelming that anyone who comes into contact with it will become, in a way, infected by it. That this is not obvious is solely because everybody has been exposed to it from birth and, as a result, has become inured to it. In previous years men either ignored it or believed it to be a typically feminine characteristic which harmed no one. But with the increase in leisure and money to spend, woman's need for entertainment has grown. Consequently, her imbecility is spreading into public life as well, reflected not just in vases, bedroom pictures, brocade curtains, cocktail parties, and Sunday sermons. The mass media have become more involved in it. Women's programs are gaining ground in radio and television. And even respectable newspapers print society gossip, crime features, and fashion news, horoscopes, and cooking recipes. And women's magazines become every day more numerous and sumptuous on the stands. Step by step, not only the private sphere of men but all of public life has become infected by this stupidity.

*************

Men Mistakenly Support Feminism To Liberate Women From Themselves

Quote:Since he realises that he and the other members of his sex are interested only in woman's external appearance (for what else is there to interest him?), he assumes that his wife's tireless efforts to make herself into an object of desire and to create a certain mystique by means of make-up (which, however, should not be exaggerated) are the signs of an excessive zeal to please him. Of course he feels guilty - and
rather touched. Thanks to his primitive needs, he believes that he is making woman into this object of his desires; he believes he is suppressing all her worthwhile qualities, which are, in fact, nowhere to be found. As usual he is missing the truth by a hair's breadth. It is in his own interest to deny the fact that this whole development is tantamount to the highest level of feminine culture and that women do not, by
means of fashion and cosmetics, make themselves into objects, but rather their ceaseless preoccupation with such matters corresponds to the mental activities of infinitely primitive subjects.

Her greatest error is that she paints too broad a brush. She doesn't believe love exists; she thinks all female relationships with men are based on manipulation. Women only want money, and they don't care about male attractiveness, in her estimation. But if you see these things as tendencies, and not absolute descriptions, she's not so far off the mark.

She doesn't address whether the tables can be turned, into where a man holds the reins in the relationship. She is convinced that men are utterly superior to women, yet ironically, she implies none among them can truly control a woman. The lives of men like Porfirio Rubirosa and Roosh put the lie to that notion, in my opinion. One could counter that they are still under the control of women as a sex, a fair point.

You can find the entire book in PDF if you search the title in Google.

PS I just bought an e-reader (an $80 Kindle), and it's terrific. If you like reading but haven't done much lately, and would like to read more, I highly recommend it.

Post: #2

As I've said elsewhere, The Manipulated Man gives perspective of how long American women have been abusing their men.

The book was written almost fifty years ago, and yet I still see men exhibiting the same behaviors Villar documented.

Sad, really.

Post: #3

Brazil on the Rise, by NYT journalist Larry rohter.

I read it some time ago, he knows a lot about Brazil's cultural and economic structure.

*Sorry , thought that this was a general book reccomendation thread. My bad

Post: #4

(01-09-2012 01:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  As I've said elsewhere, The Manipulated Man gives perspective of how long American women have been abusing their men.

The book was written almost fifty years ago, and yet I still see men exhibiting the same behaviors Villar documented.

Sad, really.

Nice. I searched the forums for 'Vilar' but didn't find anything. I must've found it through your post and then forgot about your post. Thanks. Any other recommendations?

I read Chinweizu's Anatomy of Female Power, which is similar, but I didn't find it as compelling.

Relationships can serve the purposes both a husband and wife's individual, selfish interests. But most men are too blind and cowardly, and women too skilled and remorseless, for this to happen. The abuse of Vilar speaks was dominant at least since the advent of household labor-saving appliances. By then, a woman's time was freed up yet her responsibilities did not increase.

Pat Buchanan said that the real liberators of women were the freezer, the washer and dryer, et al. Seems to be a lot of truth to that.

Post: #5

Why the freezer? So she doesn't have to cure meats?

Post: #6

lol

Post: #7

The best way to make a point is to take a strong stance. That doesn't mean the reader has to accept what is on the page as completely absolute. On the subject of relationships, common sense tells us that there ARE no absolutes. There are definitely tendencies. I don't think the author doesn't believe love exists, but that women also use that love to manipulate. They are also quite mercenary in getting what they want out of a man and a relationship, while giving back little in return.

Post: #8

Interesting

Post: #9

(01-09-2012 05:09 PM)mofo Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 05:07 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  The best way to make a point is to take a strong stance. That doesn't mean the reader has to accept what is on the page as completely absolute. On the subject of relationships, common sense tells us that there ARE no absolutes. There are definitely tendencies. I don't think the author doesn't believe love exists, but that women also use that love to manipulate. They are also quite mercenary in getting what they want out of a man and a relationship, while giving back little in return.

Yep. They give pussy, children, femininity. that's about it.

And the thing is, after children, they stop giving you the pussy and lose a lot of that femininity.

Post: #10

First, great post. This book has been on my list for some time but I haven't yet gotten around to it. Your review has definately served to bump it up several places in my reading priority. Thank you.

(01-09-2012 12:06 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Her greatest error is that she paints too broad a brush. She doesn't believe love exists; she thinks all female relationships with men are based on manipulation. Women only want money, and they don't care about male attractiveness, in her estimation. But if you see these things as tendencies, and not absolute descriptions, she's not so far off the mark.

She doesn't address whether the tables can be turned, into where a man holds the reins in the relationship. She is convinced that men are utterly superior to women, yet ironically, she implies none among them can truly control a woman. The lives of men like Porfirio Rubirosa and Roosh put the lie to that notion, in my opinion. One could counter that they are still under the control of women as a sex, a fair point.

Just to play devil's advocate, could it be that she feels that the human emotion of "love", at least from a woman's POV for any man, is ultimately, and perhaps often subconsciously (and often consciously), built upon a psychology that is first designed to extract value from the male - a psychology that gets its result through manipulation? Therefore, perhaps what she means to say isn't that love "doesn't exist" but that all love is predicated upon value exchange. She chooses to interpret this pre-condition for real-love as the non-existance of real love; however, it could easily be framed as the necessary foundation for real love. It's easy to see how both perspectives could be held to be true. It's really just about an ever-moving subjective definition of love.

When I see a female ten with a male four who gives no material goods nor status, then perhaps I'll begin to believe in "true love" from the perspective of view of a woman loving a man. Conversely, it doesn't often happen where a male 10 will be with a female 4. Therefore, I'm likely to side with her perspective on love and manipulation. Nonetheless, as I before stated, great review.

I especially like the insight that a woman only cares about the opinions of other women. That is a great piece of knowledge for a player's bag of tricks.

Post: #11

(01-15-2012 09:32 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Just to play devil's advocate, could it be that she feels that the human emotion of "love", at least from a woman's POV for any man, is ultimately, and perhaps often subconsciously (and often consciously), built upon a psychology that is first designed to extract value from the male - a psychology that gets its result through manipulation? Therefore, perhaps what she means to say isn't that love "doesn't exist" but that all love is predicated upon value exchange. She chooses to interpret this pre-condition for real-love as the non-existance of real love; however, it could easily be framed as the necessary foundation for real love. It's easy to see how both perspectives could be held to be true. It's really just about an ever-moving subjective definition of love.

When I see a female ten with a male four who gives no material goods nor status, then perhaps I'll begin to believe in "true love" from the perspective of view of a woman loving a man. Conversely, it doesn't often happen where a male 10 will be with a female 4. Therefore, I'm likely to side with her perspective on love and manipulation. Nonetheless, as I before stated, great review.

I especially like the insight that a woman only cares about the opinions of other women. That is a great piece of knowledge for a player's bag of tricks.

I see your point, but I don't see why love must be defined for it to be real, it must be this selfless, baseless act. So it's not a problem that say, female 10s never love male 5s. Maybe love is just a chemical response to a great mating opportunity, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Something I've noticed... Imagine you have two girls with all the traits and quirks you'd want in a woman. Hell, say they're both great cooks, and that's all you care about. But one's a 9 and one's a 6. You *will* appreciate the 9's cooking more just because she's hotter, which isn't really "rational." The hotter the woman, the more men appreciate her positive, non-physical qualities. I think it's the same way with women and status. Sure they might dig a guy's humor, but they'll like it even more if he's got the status to back it up.

When you fall for a woman, it's because of something about her. If that quality isn't there, you wouldn't love her. But according to your 'true love' definition, love must be unconditional to be true. So any time you would have the feelings of 'being in love' it wouldn't be 'true.'

I think we're sold this false, fanciful notion of love. Love isn't blind, or more precisely, random. Especially so in our age, when most men are utterly superfluous to most attractive women. It's just like relationship advice. Almost all of it is given out by stupid women repeating obvious lies that are completely at odds with how people actually behave. So we shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't live up to the billing.

Post: #12

(01-15-2012 10:36 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I see your point, but I don't see why love must be defined for it to be real, it must be this selfless, baseless act. So it's not a problem that say, female 10s never love male 5s. Maybe love is just a chemical response to a great mating opportunity, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Actually, I agree. My point was that it is valid to view situations, in which there is a value exchange or manipulation, as true love - which if we're being honest is every situation. This contrasts with Vilars opinion, but I also wanted to express to you that I can see her point of view as being equally valid. In my opinion, they are both valid points of view becasue the definition of love is not static.

Some, even most, people embrace the idea that love is unconditional. This is borne out of a deep emotional sympathy in some of us toward other humans, likely an artifact of our biological imperative to raise our kids successfully. Without the "unconditional love instinct' we just might abandon our kids should they not live up to our expectations. Real life soon teaches men that the rules are different for man/woman realtionships, if their fathers haven't before completed that particular task of teaching them that fact. More women tend to remain in that particular idealistic fanstasy about love, I beleive, hence Vilars belief that love doesn't exist between men and women. She sees the truth and reality of the situation, but fails to make the final jump, in her mental model, in accepting the fact that its not that love doesn't exist, but it's just that her definition of it was myopic and excessively idealistic.

Frankly, I see most man-woman "love" in terms of value exchanges but, in the rare case of "true love", like yourself, I also don't see the need or even the real ability to define it. It can be that chemical response, some type of deep loyalty based in an appreciation of that person, or something else. Becasue the definition is so varied, the term "love" remains fairly un-definable and perhaps even being in love is un-identifiable for people that have been disabused of the fairybook tale. I know that, at this point in my life, i would have a hard time identifying when I was in love. It would probably be more of a fluid calculation of risk and reward on my part, sadly. There would be no "ah ha...I think I'm in love" moment, but rather a "I enjoy this person, she doesn't annoy me to an intolerable degree, I care what happens to her, she might make a good wife and mother, Im bored of dating, and so I guess I'm in love" moment. I learned not to idealize or pedastilize anyone a long time ago, a reflex which keeps me from really falling deeply for anyone. I enjoy women and intimacy with women, just like men who beleive in the love fairytale, but I tend to fully enjoy the moment without extending that enjoyment into further meaning such as "love".

Quote:Something I've noticed... Imagine you have two girls with all the traits and quirks you'd want in a woman. Hell, say they're both great cooks, and that's all you care about. But one's a 9 and one's a 6. You *will* appreciate the 9's cooking more just because she's hotter, which isn't really "rational." The hotter the woman, the more men appreciate her positive, non-physical qualities. I think it's the same way with women and status. Sure they might dig a guy's humor, but they'll like it even more if he's got the status to back it up.

I completely agree. The love, or alternately the positive experience associated with being with that person, is enhanced becasue of the greater value exchange.

Quote:When you fall for a woman, it's because of something about her. If that quality isn't there, you wouldn't love her. But according to your 'true love' definition, love must be unconditional to be true. So any time you would have the feelings of 'being in love' it wouldn't be 'true.'

I think that you misunderstood me, and maybe that was my fault. I hope that I cleared it up above.

Post: #13

I tried to throw this in my post, but time had expired. This was to be my fourth paragraph:

To illustrate, I doubt that Vilar would be able to keep herself from feeling what she previously identified as her love for a man (before she enlightened herself) just because her current model of man and woman relationships doesn't mesh with her definition of love being unconditional. She's going to feel all of the same feelings when dating a high value man as she did before. The defintion or identification of the love as such is irrelevant - the feeling doesn't change just becasue she doesn't believe that it's love according to her model. I think this was your point. I also hold it to be true.

Post: #14

no need for a google search, here's a pdf in the attachments.

Post: #15

Roosh recently highlighted a book called "The Manipulated Man" in his blog.

Here are some of his comments:

"I’ve never had a book that made me reconsider so many of my beliefs like this one. It ended up being the most vicious takedown of the female gender that I’ve ever read, five times harsher than anything I’ve written. My mind was buzzing while reading, hungry for a fresh take on the male-female issue."

I've just read through the first couple of chapters and I share similar sentiments. Even though this was written in the 70s, it still resonates in many respects and should challenge many assumptions about the male/female dichotomy that we take for granted.

I think it's a book important enough to generate a discussion about. It's amazing the book was actually written by a woman.

Here are a list of issues she recognized to be men's most significant disadvantages compared to women. This doesn't even begin to cover the kind of analysis the book goes into but a couple of them forced me to think.

1. Men are conscripted; women are not.

2. Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.

3. Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).

4. Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion - they can only get the children women want them to have).

6. Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.

7. Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.

8. Men only 'borrow' their children; woman can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation - with the reasoning that they have to work).

The author, commenting on the original book some years later, contends that only the sixth point has seen some significant changed. More women are happily and willingly keeping their job despite having children. However, only a few of those women would be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the children's fathers, supported by their often substantial salaries; and fewer would further be prepared, in case of separation, to give up their home and offspring and support the next admirer with what is left of her income.

There are many fascinating anecdotes throughout the book that remain relevant to the dynamic that exists in the current era. I would be interested in hearing what other RVF members have to say about the book.

Post: #16

Freud had the whole root of the problem sorted decades ago:

"Man's primary love object is woman, woman's primary love obect is her children."

All follow-on effects of female indifference follow from this. Women love us like they love, say, a favorite couch.
MAYBE as much as a man loves his favorite car. But I doubt it.

Also I think evolutionarily, something like 70+% of women had children, men only maybe 40%.

Each man is a sub-species that may be likely to go extinct.

Post: #17

Dupe thread: /thread-9439.html

Meant to bump the above after Roosh's came out.

Post: #18

Dupe. Put your comments in the existing thread on this book.

Post: #19

Firstly - I love Roosh's book reviews. I have never seen a writer whose recommendations are so similar to my own interests. Even better - Roosh has a knack for pointing out books I haven't gotten round to reading yet.

The Manipulated Man was one. After Roosh's review - I decided to read it. Usually - I read books. But this one is so short that I read it online (just 69 pages in a Pdf file).

One point in the book I had never considered is one we take for granted. Men often find something they are good at or interested in when they are young, and then devote the rest of their lives to studying, specialising and working in that field.

This is a good thing for society. And it is a good thing for men. In terms of being able to earn more money.

Except that alot of money that men earn is essentially wasted on frivolous status goods in order to impresss/please the women in their lives.

When you break shit down - most men can get by with very simple living and few luxuries.

So - in effect - many talented men end up being enslaved by those talents they posess by a society which programmes men to earn as much money as possible. And in doing so - men become slaves to interests/subjects that may have interested them when they were younger - but which are now no longer of real interest.

Or at least - they no longer have the freedom to take a break from their field to explore other interests and possibilities. Without ruining their career progression or being seen as 'flakey' by other women and their employers.

I could say alot more about this book. But I just wanted to point out the one issue which I had never considered before...

Along similar lines. The author was interesting when she spoke about the great opportunites that are available to women when they have the freedom to be 'kept' by their husbands and are able to spend all day at home.

It is rare for a man to be able to 'marry up' and use a rich wife to support his interests. But it has happened - and people like Karl Jung are examples (along with some others she mentioned) of the great work that can result from this.

Whereas women just use the same opportunities to watch TV, buy shoes and bitch about being bored.

It is an unseen tragedy for society that more talented men never had the opportunity to make new discoveries and pursue new fields since they were never financially independent enough (in the way most married women are) to do so.

And because of women's hypergamy - it is very rare that a man will ever be in such a position.

I could write alot more about this provocative and interesting work. But I just want to limit myself to the above since they are novel insights I haven't come across before.

Cardguy

Post: #20

Bump, because Roosh recently reviewed this. Credit to Samseau for bringing the book to my attention.

The stupidity of women as discussed by Vilar is interesting. Among experts in intelligence research, the majority view is that men and women have an equal average IQ. Even if there is a difference, it's fairly small. And you will frequently find women succeeding in the classroom.

So how to square this with Vilar's observations? I've always found it funny that a woman can be very fair and logical in her chosen field of expertise, say, as an engineer or a lawyer. But if you look outside this abstract, impersonal compartment of their life, and look at her personal beliefs and attitudes, you will see much that is manifestly retarded, silly and irrational. Perhaps it's that women would transmit useful wisdom from their ancestors, but this link broke with the advent of sexual liberation and feminism. You no longer have that transmission of wisdom, and instead have female hamsturbating. Often when you meet traditional women, and offer them truisms common here on these boards, she'd hardly disagree.

Oh, and Vilar's point that 'stupidity makes woman divine' is an excellent one. 'Divine' is just the perfect word, because for ages people have been consigning acts of tragedy and catastrophe to God's inscrutable will, when it was likely just random forces of nature.

Quote:Whereas women just use the same opportunities to watch TV, buy shoes and bitch about being bored.

The average man would do something similar. At least for what you discuss, the differences are only at the extremes.

"Men desire, women want to be desired." [Not from Vilar, at least not originally]

^This goes a long way to explaining the differences between men and women. Men acquire status so that a woman will love them, women acquire wealth to feel like a high status man loves them. When they are too ugly to secure it via a man, they are more likely to strike out on their own. Feminism is remarkable for getting many women to acquire status and wealth through their own means, at least until they marry.

Post: #21

Here is an interesting article by a female philosopher on why it is that all the geniuses happen to be men:

http://www.edge.org/print/res-detail.php?rid=1960

The way I picture it is pretty simple. It is documented that most geniuses are classed as being on the Autistic Spectrum. And many historical geniuses are suspected of being so as well.

And the vast majority of people on the Autistic Spectrum are male.

Therefore - most of the world's geniuses are male. Simples.

Cardguy

Post: #22

(01-09-2012 04:24 PM)kbell Wrote:  Why the freezer? So she doesn't have to cure meats?

No, so she doesn't have to kill and dress an animal for dinner. That's what the chicas do here in the campo in central america where I live.

Post: #23

(01-16-2012 02:05 AM)sine wave killer Wrote:  no need for a google search, here's a pdf in the attachments.

thanks!

Post: #24

(11-11-2012 08:22 PM)cardguy Wrote:  The way I picture it is pretty simple. It is documented that most geniuses are classed as being on the Autistic Spectrum. And many historical geniuses are suspected of being so as well.

And the vast majority of people on the Autistic Spectrum are male.

Therefore - most of the world's geniuses are male. Simples.

Cardguy

Good comments Cardguy but this explanation fails.

Geniuses are autistic, and most autistics are males - this just shifts the question to,

"Why are most autistics male?"

Post: #25

I am not sure why most autistics are male.

But it is isn't something I am trying to address. I just wanted a neat argument to explain to women that the reason all the geniuses through history are male is because of something biological. As opposed to it being because men have oppresed women in such a way that they could never fully express their genius. It also makes sense in terms of the differences in what men and women find attractive when it comes to evolution.

And if I have time - I usually write down the name 'Marie Curie' on a piece of paper before starting the conversation. In this country - when asked to name a female genius - 99% of people name Marie Curie. Interesting that her husband Pierre is totally forgotten despite being a Nobel prize winner as well.

Anyway - I like to show that I predicted the name they were going to mention as a way of showing how limited the field of potential female geniuses is.

Cardguy