Post: #1

So many chicks I talk to about animals think they're doing some great humanitarian service to the world by avoiding eating meat and wearing PETA tshirts. They undoubtedly saw one of those exposé videos on factory farming and were "appalled" (they fatten up and kill animals before they're turned into meat...? holy shit, who knew!?). The topic of animal abuse/neglect in general sends them into an irrational fervor, just look at the stupid things that have been blown out of proportion like with Michael Vick and Melissa Bachman. If a pet of theirs dies, they become a sobbing basket case for a week.

Try talking to her about the treatment of women in Muslim countries, political prison camps in North Korea, AIDS and rape epidemics in Africa, the skyhigh suicide rate among middle aged white men, the rampant gang violence among young black men... And they can rarely even feign an emotional response.

I find this utterly creepy.
It's not so much the compassion for animals, that I can understand, it's the juxtaposition with them absolutely not giving a shit about human life.
Why is this?

Post: #2

Dogs are better than people.

Post: #3

I believe it is because women are naturally designed to do one thing....

Have and raise lots of babies. If you go back to our evolutionary roots a woman would be expected to have as many as 10 kids. 5 of those 10 would not even make it to adulthood. How many of those 5 would they themselves successfully have enough children to keep the human population growing. Modern medicine and technological advances have really replaced the need for women in so many facets of life.

Frustratingly for most men, most women have not been able to adapt. So women still have a strong desire to help/nurture, but women are not designed to do this in a humanitarian effort on a geo-political scale. So to them, helping a cause that is far greater, such as ending the evils of communist or Islamic extremism is just a foreign concept. But nurturing a helpless animal who is dependent upon them, and even more so being in control of this helpless animal is on par with them nurturing a helpless baby.

As you get older, and your sex drive starts to even out, you really find many things women do in the western world to be borderline disgusting and unattractive.

Post: #4

Human beings are like the interface between the Animals below them and the Divine above. These PETA-types of women are siding with the low-level, animalistic side of life so it makes sense that, in you example, other-worldy concepts like justice and purpose have no value to them.

Post: #5

Humans rule the world because we are good at intelligence, meaning pattern recognition.
It so happens that same intelligence helps us multiply relatively unchecked globally. I consider this a bad thing even though one result was my own existence.
That said, I am glad ancient Chinese humans used microevolution to create certain dog breeds.

Post: #6

(08-25-2014 06:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  ....nurturing a helpless animal who is dependent upon them, and even more so being in control of this helpless animal is on par with them nurturing a helpless baby.

This is very true, for "pet people" and PETA types, both male and female, though it is probably more pronounced in females. Fact is, an animal is easier than a person. Animals don't disagree with you or vote differently than you, they depend upon you but are easier to control and usually less expensive to maintain than a child. They take the place of intimacy and fit perfectly where a human relationship would ordinarily go. But when you get right down to it, an animal isn't going to take care of you when you get old, it isn't going to find the cure for cancer, and it isn't going to raise your kids, if you ever have any.

Add to this the reality that animals and pets are something they see every day in person, whereas African AIDS, Islamic subjugation of women, North Korean prison camps, etc. take a lot of effort to see and are usually only viewed indirectly at a great distance, if at all.

I don't mean to classify pet owners as being this way, but "pet people" are those who treat their pets like kids (and often, their kids like pets). These kinds of people are generally present in first world centers of gluttony and sloth like the US and Western Europe.

Post: #7

Animals don't judge them on their whorishness.

Post: #8

Dogs are sincere. They are honest. They are loyal. What is there not to like?

Post: #9

I like animals, too. I don't think we have to dislike things just because women like them.

I wonder if it's possible than women have an easier time experiencing life "in the moment" compared to men, so in this way they may be closer to their "animal" nature. Men are more logical and can more easily get trapped "in their head".

Also, the nurturing thing mentioned above.

Post: #10

(08-25-2014 11:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I don't think we have to dislike things just because women like them.

It's sad that this even needs saying here.

Post: #11

I don't think the issue is about liking animals. I think it's about valuing animals over humans, and that's what the PETA extremists do.

RexImperator is right that women live in the moment, as animals do. The lion isn't sitting around contemplating the bigger questions in life. She's eating, sleeping, mating, and lounging around.

Post: #12

There is a flipside too to the relationship with pets. I think there is some comfort for a Narcissist in the knowledge that their dog or cat will never leave them:- that they can 'attach' without fear of abandonment. Although the requirement for intimacy is low the dependency of the animal is reassuring sometimes I think.

For an individual who has grown up believing that all relationships are underpinned by power (particularly the power to abandon or reject) it must be quite comforting to know your dog does not have that power.

Post: #13

(08-25-2014 11:13 AM)puckerman Wrote:  Dogs are sincere. They are honest. They are loyal. What is there not to like?

But when men behave that way towards women, they're punished for it.

Post: #14

Animals are children to women. Is it any wonder they would love them?

Post: #15

(08-25-2014 11:13 AM)puckerman Wrote:  Dogs are sincere. They are honest. They are loyal. What is there not to like?

True, but I think some people, especially women, believe a dogs love is unconditional and won't place conditions on us.

But happens when we stop feeding a dog?

Post: #16

(08-25-2014 11:43 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:13 AM)puckerman Wrote:  Dogs are sincere. They are honest. They are loyal. What is there not to like?

But when men behave that way towards women, they're punished for it.

We want women to act like our dogs. Women want men to act like their cats.

Post: #17

Animals allow for the release of nurturing emotions without the obligations and continuance-of-cultural-traditions associated with children.

They're a pressure valve for an artificially constrained sex.

Post: #18

(08-25-2014 11:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I like animals, too. I don't think we have to dislike things just because women like them.

I wonder if it's possible than women have an easier time experiencing life "in the moment" compared to men, so in this way they may be closer to their "animal" nature. Men are more logical and can more easily get trapped "in their head".

Also, the nurturing thing mentioned above.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women

" That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of prudence, as well as of that care and anxiety which so many people exhibit. Both the advantages and the disadvantages which this involves, are shared in by the woman to a smaller extent because of her weaker power of reasoning. She may, in fact, be described as intellectually short-sighted, because, while she has an intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men."

"However many disadvantages all this may involve, there is at least this to be said in its favor; that the woman lives more in the present than the man, and that, if the present is at all tolerable, she enjoys it more eagerly. This is the source of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to women, fitting her to amuse man in his hours of recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the weight of his cares."

"It is by no means a bad plan to consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in ancient times; for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, chiefly in the fact that they like to take the shortest way to their goal, and, in general, manage to fix their eyes upon what lies before them; while we, as a rule, see far beyond it, just because it is in front of our noses. In cases like this, we need to be brought back to the right standpoint, so as to recover the near and simple view.

Then, again, women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than we are, so that they do not see more in things than is really there; whilst, if our passions are aroused, we are apt to see things in an exaggerated way, or imagine what does not exist."

Post: #19

(08-25-2014 10:50 AM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 06:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  ....nurturing a helpless animal who is dependent upon them, and even more so being in control of this helpless animal is on par with them nurturing a helpless baby.

But when you get right down to it, an animal isn't going to take care of you when you get old, it isn't going to find the cure for cancer, and it isn't going to raise your kids, if you ever have any.

A lot of hardcore animal lovers talk about how animals are so much more innocent then humans and how they are free from the greed and evil that humans perpetuate. These people need to take a look at what you wrote above. Animals may not have knowledge of evil but they also do not have knowledge of good. Sure animals don't go out of their way to commit genocide or enslave other animals but you aren't going to see a lion speaking out for the "rights and dignity" of the antelope either (and signing petitions on Change in support of it )

Post: #20

Women that don't have children to nurture and care for will turn to animals as a replacement.

Post: #21

The role of animals is basically to reproduce and be at the mercy of men, who might harm them if they have no use for them.

Women's role is basically the same. And subconsciously they know that, therefore they relate to "helpless" animals.

Post: #22

Wutang that's not true. Chimpanzee groups go on genocidal wars to eliminate enemy chimp groups.

Those PETA people are probably dealing with daddy issues.

I'm vegetarian and I don't like to see animals suffer, but I think there are a certain amount indignant PETA people who do it because they want to feel that they are better than everyone else. Maybe the root is that they don't have a core self confidence, like the feminists.. Basing everything on insecurity.

Post: #23

(08-25-2014 06:45 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  I find this utterly creepy.
It's not so much the compassion for animals, that I can understand, it's the juxtaposition with them absolutely not giving a shit about human life.
Why is this?

Animals usually become a fetishised Object to Narcissists because of their blank slate nature. They fill the role of perfect Actors as the Narcissist can freely-ascribe them behavioural motivations without contradiction, the most frequent ones being unconditional love and non-violence.

This is why all the Female Typists you see online bitching about men not being the Actors they think they should be are so frequently cat ladies. People confuse them, because they have their own autonomous needs and wants, and thereby don't jump to attention when barked at, therefore, they are of no reliable use to them, hence, the lack of empathy.

I'd take this even further, and say, 'Mr. Right' is a fantastical construct they all cling to designed to function in her life exactly as a pet would.

Dunno, just my take on it. I've just always noticed the dumber the woman, the greater her love of animals. Whereas I've owned and loved dogs, but was always aware that, if they were locked in a house with my corpse for a week, I'd look mighty tasty to them.

Post: #24

don't forget the multiple species of ant that enslave other animals.
some ants even domesticated other species and bring them into the ant hill to harvest them.

Post: #25

While I would love to see a study on this, I believe that women who over empathize with animals are women who are disconnected from their femininity.

I get this idea from the amount of women I've met or dated who loved animals to death, but were sexually abused or worked in a sex industry.

For example, I used to bang this girl regularily who had a cat she loved so much that she tattooed his name in her arm. Later I learn she was molested as a child. She was really pretty, but she always downplayed her looks, had weird hair styles, etc. etc. In a way, it's like she's wearing these weird clothes/styles to downplay her looks, and while she tried to emotionally connect with me the best she could, her cat was literally the number one person in her life. We stopped speaking after her cat died, she said she was in a "bad place" after it died.

Next example comes from a stripper/tug girl I used to know through a friend who was dating her. She had two dogs who were the love of her life, and he of course, came second. I hated those yappy little fuckers. Similar to the girl I used to bang, she was a stripper, but she had been raped. Unlike the other girl, she dressed really sexual. However, she seemed somewhat emotionally disconnected, except with her dogs.

Final example comes from another friend of mine who dated this University girl for a time. She was kind of on the ugly side, dressed like an average girl, but again, she had tons of animals who she spoke to like "babies." My friend later tells me while we were drunk, that she was raped when she went to another country on vacation. Of course, this girl seemed emotionally disconnected, and didn't deal with emotions well at all. You could never tell if she was angry or not.

So, again, what did these girls all have in common?

They were sluts.
They all had trouble with connecting with others unless they were wasted.
They were obsessed with being independent.
They craved male attention to some level, but still seemed more attached to their animals


I think this animal love is a disconnect from the realities of facing men head on. Animals provide them the assumed unconditional love they crave, and men are judgemental and dangerous. Sure they still loved sex, and they still loved male attention, but there is a block. I'm sure this block is a result of sexual abuses/traumas, and they feel like their fears of being abused again will come true if they fully let a man into their lives, so they in turn move to something that won't harm them no matter how far they get in their lives, and that's an animal.

Not to mention, I have to assume a lot of women fear the idea of having children after having been victims of things like rape, so an animal allows them that freedom of being a semi-parent without the actual human attachment of having an actual child and facing themselves in a more direct fashion.