Post: #1

I don't why I get into debates with this woman. She is pretty smart actually, but she is dogmatic leftist that it's ridiculous. Her comments here summarize what modern feminism is though:

Quote:Also, I think Libertarian/conservative phrases such as "Nanny state" or any rhetoric that refers to government-funded and/or run social services as parental in a disparaging way are chauvinistic and as a woman I deeply resent that sort of language. The vast majority of women throughout history and still the majority of women today have had our livelihoods at least partially supported by parents and husbands. This has been because of conditions mostly out of our control, including the reality that we're the sex that incubate and more typically do most of the rearing of the upcoming generation - without any compensation other than weak sentiments of appreciation such as the holiday of "Mothers Day". Government aid such as public schools, libraries, unemployment, subsidized day care, food assistance, and welfare have all helped primarily women, especially mothers be more financially secure and more financially independent. It is an over-dependence on the free market system and lack of government services that forces too many women to be dependent on others to survive.

Basically her attitude in the comment is that women are helpless and weak and that the great and powerful state has to be there to help them out. It's kind of sad, because she is a smart person on the whole. I know her from an atheist group I've associated with.

Post: #2

Ok.

Post: #3

Would you smash?

Post: #4

Quote:It is an over-dependence on the free market system and lack of government services that forces too many women to be dependent on others to survive.

So, it's 'bad' that women are financially-dependent on one man or her parents - both of whom have an emotional investment in her well-being - so the healthier solution is to make them financially-dependent on multiple men and women whom, at best, have a theoretical investment in her well-being, but could potentially-slash funding to any of the services described at any moment, since the monetary well isn't bottomless - particularly with the reality of an enormous wave of incoming welfare-dependant migrants in many western countries?*

My town cut funding to both Homosexual Health Services and Sexual Abuse Survivors due to the need for Somali-Specific Health Services. Women and homosexuals are simply out of vogue in 2015 when it comes to welfare funding for more marginalised populations.

Post: #5

(Bosch, please reply to this post. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion.)

Puckerman, I've been trying to simultaneously increase my empathy towards women, grind through the misogynistic perspectives in Stefan Molyneux's rants, and maintain my positive masculine energy. (As an analogy, this is like breathing in a "scent", allowing it to fully but briefly embody me, and then releasing the scent in order to revert back to my body's positive masculine "scent".) If I do all of these things correctly, I'll be able to "speak girl" - to translate the essential emotional core of what she wants into a language that you can understand. While I deeply respect Bosch's reply for its ability to quickly point out the logical weakness of her position, (preventing you from being conned by it), my reply aims to protect all men's hearts and souls from bitterness. I've wasted much of my life on bitterness, and don't want anyone else to do the same.

Rollo Tomassi recently used the term "hypergamous doubt" - the ever present anxiety over whether a woman has acquired the best possible mate. But this definition is dry and intellectual, so you don't really know what hypergamous doubt feels like.

Imagine you have a super power: if any parts of your arms or legs (including your entire arm or leg) are amputated, they grow back within an hour. It still hurts just as much as when a non super-powered person suffers identical injuries. But, hey, at least they grow back.

Now imagine that an unstoppable maniac, at random times, deliberately amputates random parts of your limbs. You're just about to do the dishes, and he slices off two fingers. You're just about to drive to the store, and he chainsaws your leg. It hurts like a bitch, and, yes - at least they grow back. But, compared to a person who doesn't constantly lose limbs, how much productive work can she be reasonably expected to accomplish?

That's what hypergamous doubt feels like.

I fully accept Bosch's criticism of the volatility of relying on government to quell women's hypergamous doubt, but I don't think most men (historically) were emotionally concerned with their wives. I'll never accept the feminist narrative that women were oppressed, but I think the overwhelming percentage of historical marriages have been completely devoid of happiness. If women don't have the power nor leverage to incentivize appreciation and emotional connection from their husbands, why would anyone predict that husbands provided these things - especially in historical times when war was much more prevalent and leisure time much less so?

So this woman, like pretty much all women, scans the horizon for any condescension and contempt towards women, because she urgently feels that small sand grain sized instances of these can quickly multiply into massive sandstorms.

So what she really meant was, "puckerman, if you emotionally understood how crippling hypergamous doubt is, and if you empathized with our plight, you'd develop a solution that would uplift us all. And you'd uplift us because you loved us, not because of what we do for you. Because if you love us for what we do for you, this means you'll discard us when we can no longer do those things. And this makes us feel anxious and sad, which is called hypergamous doubt. Worse, the more you point out the shortcomings in all current political positions, you do so with such authority that we strongly feel you know how to fix our problems - but are refusing to do so! What utter blackness inhabits your soul that prevents you from seeing the joy and optimism you'd create by uplifting us?!?"

I hope that was helpful. Bosch, thanks in advance for your feedback.

Post: #6

I would rather be dependent on family; the institution that actually knows me than have false independence with the government who doesn't know me. When things go bad are you going to call social services or your friends and family? Well it is obvious social services which have served to undermine and destroy families.

Post: #7

MMX2010:

I see what you're getting at, but the woman is incapable of recognising she was already uplifted by Puckerman and other men, and it would be a pointless task to try and please her. She is fully-invested in her narcissistic construct as a hard-done by Victim, and simply hates men, and, as such, will never, ever see the good in them.

Quote:including the reality that we're the sex that incubate and more typically do most of the rearing of the upcoming generation - without any compensation other than weak sentiments of appreciation such as the holiday of "Mothers Day".

This is what I mean. Let's go back to the horrible, oppressive 1950's era she's basically-complaining about, (when there were multiple career options for women beyond housewife status).

Men built her house. They built the roads to her house. They generated the electricity that powered the house, and the infrastructure that connected it. They built the car she drives. They built the supermarket near her. They drove the trucks that stocked the shelves for her convenience. They hunted and killed the meat. They police her suburbs to keep her and her children safe, and put their lives on the line to save her home, should it catch on fire. They built the hospitals that can save her life, and the drugs to treat her injuries. Men en masse will travel to foreign shores to guarantee the security and comfort of her existence, and all she has to do to contribute is a couple of hours of housework a week, and cook a few meals, but that tiny expectation of effort to contribute to the comfort of someone else other than her narcissistic self makes her feel hard done by and 'persecuted', so she bitches about 'Mother's Day'.

I'm not bitter about women. I just understand they're fundamentally incapable of gratitude unless they develop true maturity through hardship. I know not to expect it from them, so am not disappointed or hurt by its absence, and pleasantly-surprised when it does appear. I know that when offered the world, they will grumble about how they should also have the moon. They complain to complain. The way to handle it is to simply ignore it or tell her that's what her friends are for. There is no possible correct answer that will make a woman happy when she is determined to be unhappy.

As such, this is a classic girl cliché, and, all Feminism basically amounts to:















So, why aren't they happy?

They choose not to be.

That's 'speaking girl'. As such, when I meet an attractive girl I recognise as being capable of happiness, I girlfriend her up.

Post: #8

Is being happy a good goal though? Its temporary, tranquility and acceptance might be longer lasting. I'm reading this book, but not far into it yet. /thread-49905.html

I'd be curious if women would just be better off not pursuing happiness. When you search for it it tends to disappear. In the book they mention a polar bear challenge (Russian challenge) where the goal is not think of the bear for a minute. Its impossible due to meta cognition I believe its called. A sort of thought monitoring.

Post: #9

(10-09-2015 06:54 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  "I'm not bitter about women. I just understand they're fundamentally incapable of gratitude unless they develop true maturity through hardship.......
I know that when offered the world, they will grumble about how they should also have the moon. "

Incredible quote

Post: #10

(10-09-2015 07:51 AM)kbell Wrote:  Is being happy a good goal though? Its temporary, tranquility and acceptance might be longer lasting.

Exactly, KBell. You get it.

Women, however, seem to chase happiness thinking once they reach it, it will be there forever, which is a basic denial of reality: life is ebb and flow. I suspect the loss of the post-wedding high is to blame for women's issues with marriage: I got married, so why aren't I feeling happy-ever-after?

I don't dwell on unhappiness because I understand, like happiness, that it's only experienced for a brief time that will naturally pass. This way, I don't fear being unhappy, and I more deeply-appreciate the periods of happiness that I have.

Post: #11

Most men understand that happiness is fleeting. Most women seem to understand this as well.

Where men and women differ, imo, is in the ability to find contentment. Most men seem to be able to find a place of tranquility - be it via a hobby, in the company of other men or simply in their own company. Women seem to be unable to reach this place. They are either happy or discontent - there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

And they absolutely can't handle the fact that men can be content. I've never seen a woman leave a tranquil man in peace.

Post: #12

Interestingly, I was catching up on Aurini this morning, and noted the statement at 7:08 that echoes my point:





"You don't become a Feminist because you like other people and you appreciate all the blessings you've been given in life... you become a feminist because you can't be happy - you refuse to allow yourself to be happy."

Post: #13

That's something I've been saying for a long time. MGTOW, and to a less extent the people who hang out at "MRA" sites, behave exactly like feminists in a lot of ways. They're the male equivalent of feminists: while some valid complaints kicked off the movements(althugh you have to reach 100+ years ago for feminism), the current strains consist mostly of people who are bitter and unhappy....and who when faced with the option to play the cards their given as well as possible and improve themselves, instead choose to lash out and try to make everyone else miserable with the.

That's why neomasculinity > MRA > MGTOW.

Post: #14

(10-09-2015 08:05 AM)African.horn Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 06:54 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  "I'm not bitter about women. I just understand they're fundamentally incapable of gratitude unless they develop true maturity through hardship.......
I know that when offered the world, they will grumble about how they should also have the moon. "

Incredible quote

This explains to a T how the three girls who I was fondest of (sweet, feminine polarity, pleasant to be around, givers by nature, cook, clean, minimal drama levels) have all had foster parents. And why women are more feminine in less-developed countries...

This is why Cinderella is an idealized version of femininity. Hardship develops their humility and provides an appreciation for men who make their lives easier.