VD, it’s men like you who make me throw up. Thanks. I totally understand feminists now. Why chase after men? Maybe you’ll be lucky and find a guy like Joe who will stay with you through thick/thin, but most men are like VD, who say, ” oh, you can read Dante while getting you hair done.”However, there is no reason anyone should believe there is an intrinsic difference between a man who cares for his ailing wife and a man who isn't concerned about his wife's lack of interest in reading La Commedia in the Florentine vulgar. If she prefers Sudoku, where is the problem in that? (Now Farmville over B3, that's what I'll never understand.) After all, for all we know, the ailing wife is a devotee of Hee-Haw re-runs while her husband, when he is not occupied with his care duties, translates Shakespeare into ancient Sumerian.
Why thank you, I’m so honored. All I wanted in life was to be a pretty ornament hung up in someone’s kitchen. Forget men, hopefully I’ll make enough in my life to buy some vibrators/dildos because, really, what are men these days?
I can’t believe that I hoped for something more, depth, style, substance or compatibility. I can’t believe I used to put love on a pedestal as something beautiful that just happens, or believe that relationships included two people who deeply trusted in each other, who swore to be together through whatever problems may come.
I wasted all my childhood reading “Dover Beach” and Phillip Pullman’s “His dark Materials”. Love isn’t real. Life is shallow and really what’s the point of this site? this conversation? this blog? Why do we care if the world denigrates into meaningless hookups? There is nothing more.
Part of this woman's essential problem is revealed by her childhood reading. Those whose childhood foundation was more Pullman than Lewis are intellectually poisoned. In this case, the resulting perspective is downright monstrous; I have far more contempt for this female mentality than for the shallowest smiling bubblehead out there. She is observably an angry elitist who is furious at the world for valuing what it values rather than what she has to offer it. The monstrosity stems from her implicit denial of the possibility that shallow people of either sex, who happen to make up most of the world, are deserving of love. And yet, despite her cruel elitism, we can see that she simply has no clue about love or what it is.
Love doesn’t “just happen”. That is infatuation. Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end. But those who are full of pride, anger, and bitterness cannot be expected to have any idea what love is.
69 comments:
That last paragraph is brilliant IMO. (Not that anything you write isnt)
It sums up how I feel about love post Red Pill, and I'm pleased to see someone as informed as you are has a similar view.
Not a really serious comment, but I can't take someone who thinks Philip Pullman is a good storyteller seriously. I mean, come on! Literally the only memorable thing he's ever written was the alcoholic talking polar bear! He only wishes he was as good as Lewis...
On a somewhat more serious note: nobody wants to date her because she's a snobby credentialed elitist. 5 bucks says she's a grad student in something lame.
Lest we forget, "love" is also a verb. Too often we think of it just as a feeling that one day came and another day floatied away. If it's our deepest possible connection to another being, then we have some conscious say in the matter.
However, one small point of disagreement. Translating Shakespeare into ancient Sumerian is nearly as fruitless as a Hee-Haw obsession. The double-entendres fall flat. Surprisingly, the richness of Shakespeare's comedies translates far more effectively into the more formal dialects of pre-Cortesian Nahuatl.
"I wasted all my childhood reading “Dover Beach” and Phillip Pullman’s “His dark Materials”."
Exactly. And to quote Dante "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
I can’t believe that I hoped for something more, depth, style, substance or compatibility.
The entitlement mentality of this intellectual midget is showing, here. You don't "hope" for these things. You work at them, as anyone who has been successfully married for more than two years can tell you. (34 years, here.)
She obviously wants all the wonderfulness to just "happen", without any investment of time, blood, sweat and tears. And she thinks her version of love is "deep".
Yes, my vapid, overeducated little girl, your childhood was "wasted". The toxic version of "love" you learned does not exist in any permanent form. Now, run along and play, and let the adults have their conversations.
Sure we value those things, as long as you're pretty. If you aren't, we can still value them in principle, but we fail to see you as really being a woman on the emotional level.
So, the choices for her are to be an ornament or sitting in the parlor, surrounding by intellectual sycophants?
She needs to understand being credentialed and well-read does not make someone interesting. My buddies range in jobs and social status, but they're interesting. The concrete worker is a ballistics guru (hunting and long range targets). The trigger puller at a nuke facility is an amazing redneck cook (uses simple ingredients and accomplishes amazing tastes). The warehouse guy is a rock-star level poker player and cleans up regularly.
They don't introduce themselves as experts, but readily share interesting conversation when prompted and do so casually and without condescension. I think we can sit around the table and have great times because we all respect each other. I don't get the idea that this woman respects others, which is why she made the earlier strawman.
"Tedious woman is uninteresting." Shocking.
If Pullman during formative years is poison, then dear God, what will Twilight prove to be when children marinated in it reach adult age?
She hopes she can afford a dildo someday? What, is she wanting a solid gold one?
This is also why we shouldn't feel some existential angst when we learn about female hypergamy, as if the universe were treating us unfairly. The predicament of the ugly woman is even worse.
This idiotic female rant reminded me of Cail Corishev's wisdom:
alphagameplan.blogspot.hu/2012/09/communication-and-la-difference.html?showComment=1347482533213#c2783914998473260574
The Red Pill can be rather unpleasant for men, but for women it's absolutely f--king brutal. This woman knows she'll never be able to attract the kind of men she wants to attract, so she's going bonkers.
The real reason women like this go into nonsensical rants is not due to game being false. It is because Game holds a mirror to them and the don't like what they see.
"Love doesn’t “just happen”. That is infatuation. Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end."
^THIS. I will be quoting it in future, most likely.
What a utilitarian outlook she has, to think that what she was reading as a child must somehow apply directly to her adult relationships. I don't even remember half the stuff I read as a kid; and I don't care, because I was reading for the fun of it. I certainly don't get upset because women don't want to hear about the summer I went through the library's Poe section.
Anger simply oozes from her writing.
Great post, but I disagree with the attribution of this woman's problems to reading His Dark Materials. In fact, the moral of the trilogy is pretty well summarized by your last paragraph.
[b]I pointed out that lack of interest was actually a good thing because most women are shallow. This didn't go over so well. [/b]
I laughed out loud at that line. Vox is absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether it's science, philosophy, mathematics or any other hard field, the bulk of the people who are interested in it and read about it in their free time are men.
It doesn't matter whether it's science, philosophy, mathematics or any other hard field, the bulk of the people who are interested in it and read about it in their free time are men.
Very true, but even most men don't sit around discussing those things all day long. Drop in on most male conversations and they aren't terribly deep either (see any thread on football ;-) But the difference is that a group of men are more likely to have a discussion of substance than a group of women are. Men are generally perfectly happy to let women sit in on these conversations and contribute if they can, ask relevant questions if they have any, but what they don't like is the women trying to take over the conversation and try to turn it into something completely inane. None of which means that you can not have a significant conversation/discussion with your significant other, but it's silly to think that this is what they value in you.
It gives me great pleasure as a kitchen ornament to laugh and sneer at the dildo wielding, lonely, raging elitists. I pity them and encourage my other kitchen ornament friends to do so as well. It's so much fun.
Love was outlined by Stendhal long ago. What you're talking about is just a kind of caring, which people call love.
facepalm:
Love was outlined by Stendhal long ago. What you're talking about is just a kind of caring, which people call love.
Fine. And what Stendhal outlined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallization_(love)) was a vapid, shallow, and necessarily temporary thing. Not what this woman says she hopes for.
Which speaks to Vox's assertion that women seldom tell the truth about what they want.
She is observably an angry elitist who is furious at the world for valuing what it values rather than what she has to offer it. The monstrosity stems from her implicit denial of the possibility that shallow people of either sex, who happen to make up most of the world, are deserving of love.
The above is hereby nominated for Insightfull Blog Snippet of the Year.
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. I've met many "intellectually shallow"* people who were warm and kind and had a knack for lifting your spirits. Vox is right that this petty, selfish little bitch never learned to value what others have to offer. She thinks the sun rises and sets on her contributions to the world.
She was almost certainly led astray by the ugly feminists who insisted anything comforting or feminine (i.e. what they weren't) has no value, so this poor girl has been led to overestimate her intellectual ability in the hopes she has something acceptible to offer.
* - actually, most of them I really don't know if they were shallow or not. There was just never an occasion to plumb the intellectual depths with them, and they didn't insist on turning routine events into tedious philosophy sessions.
Maybe she can get a Microsoft dildo that specializes in PowerPoint?
"Maybe she can get a Microsoft dildo that specializes in PowerPoint?"
And if it can make conference calls, all the better.
The woman is dripping with self-pity.
One of the lessons of the Red Pill is to ignore what women say, and observe what they do. On the web, this means reading between the lines.
What I see between those lines is... that there is an opening for you there VD, if you so desire.
Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end.
VD, the writer who goes by "Just a Thought" (the author of the stuff you quoted) sorta, kinda tried to turn me (the Joe being referenced) into some sort of white knight. That would be a slur in a lot of places.
But I'm no white knight. What I didn't say, because it would have been off topic, was that I'm doing what I can because she deserves my help.
One thing that Roissy tends to miss is that the sex is only a small part of what's important. It's easy to think it's a large part in your 20s and even 30s, but he should know better by know.
You really shouldn't keep baiting Scalzi like this, Vox. It could result in him having an attack of eczema.
William:
Temporary yeah, but why vapid or shallow?
What post at HUS was this comment on? I cant find it.
"lack of male interest in women's deeper qualities"
Still chuckling at this one. There are certainly at least ONE "deeper" quality of women that I've been interested in since about age 13....
One positive thing that the red pill has done for me is to relax about the fact that I can never have deep meaningful conversations with women about philosophy and art and society and the implications of the Civil War on our daily freedoms.
Accepting certain realities, no matter how distasteful at first, is a key component of a happy, worry-free life. Which is why so many Amerikans steeped since childhood in the lies of progressivism and feminism and atheism (but I repeat myself) will never be truly happy.
Pretty ornament for the kitchen? Not sure about that, she sounds like a fat girl.
Great minds discuss ideas.
Mediocre minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Simple observation: men are more highly concentrated toward the top end, women toward the bottom.
Female solipism makes it almost impossible to have a deep conversation with a woman because *everything* is personal. Or in the very least it makes the process much more tedious and risky. This woman's rant is a textbook example of this.
The woman is dripping with self-pity.
And fear.
Look, most women are not intellectuals. BFD.
Intellectuals are the ones who can talk themselves into just about anything. They're the ones seen using circular logic to justify the stupidest stuff.
Like Blue Pill thinking.
I like to consider myself a recovering intellectual. At least I hope I'm recovering.
What's the point of going deeper when the surface is not worth squat?
This is fascinating post, but jumping on the young woman may not be the wisest course. I'm thinking she's in the initial stages of coming to grips with how ill-served she's been by the culture/educational establishment who gave her "Dover Beach" and Phillip Pullman and expected her to be inspired by them.
Those two works are profoundly dis-spiriting.
Arnold's poem is about how dispirited he feels by the ebbing tide of faith he perceives among the "best and brightest" at the high tide of British Empire.
His other work shows that he himself is nonetheless determined to soldier on with a Gandalfian "Fool's Hope" stoicism and not a little amused mastery. But Dover beach in a vacuum will suck the life right out of you.
I don't have time here to get into the Pullman*, but if the Black Numenoreans had written children's fiction, they would have come up with something akin to Pullman.
There is a hint of late Numenor in the air.
As a teacher I can say that the rising generation knows something is up. Slamming them for questioning the shit they've been given may not be the ideal approach to defeating those who gave it to them.
* - I actually did a fairly in-depth research paper in grad school comparing Pullman and Lewis (the obvious), but also Tolkien. Tolkien would despise Pullman.
The problem is faithlessness, in every sense of the word.
I'm not convinced it is a young woman. I'm seeing a late 30's to 50's woman with cats...and lots of regrets. Even young literature major women aren't pontificating at this level. If they were...we might be on the verge of a turnaround. I'm just not convinced that is the case with even 5% of young women today. I know my daughters used to think in this rebellious way about men vs. women. I correct them whenever possible, but they are preteens. It's that princess complex that obscures reality with what their deceitful hearts wish was true.
I also think she's middle-aged. If a woman is over 22 and wants to be a married mother, the Red Pill will bring her nothing but grief. It's no wonder we're seeing this type of response. Do you remember Heartiste's post entitled "The sad, bitter end"? It's a shame that he deleted it.
Höllenhund, I think you're absolutely right. I keep seeing different cut off ages in the red-pill communities, but in general it offers very little hope to a woman whose first bloom of youth is gone already. It's great news for a man; he can work on behaviors that will improve his success with women. The news for women is basically that if she's not smoking hot and too young to drink, she should start building her cat shelters at once. There are limited things that a woman who is not hot can do about her physical makeup, and it's even harder if she's trying to hew to Christian values. It may be easier for a woman to get someone to sleep with her, but it's more difficult than ever for a woman to find a marriage partner. We can work on improving our minds or our cooking skills or a million other things, but our looks and age are far more difficult to adjust. What can we do in that position?
Keb, MOAR CATS!
"There are limited things that a woman who is not hot can do about her physical makeup" - Keb
My husband and his college roommates used to complain that it is just not fair that all an ugly woman has to do is grow her hair out and she adds a point or two to her looks.
There has been valuable advice talked about here in the past of what women can do: keep long hair, lose weight and stay fit, learn to use makeup properly, dress in a way that exhibits high value.
She will do well to reject feminism in all its forms and take on a quiet and gentle spirit. Get rid of the behaviors that men abhor.
Then, get in the company of men that are a good 10 years older than themselves.
She hopes she can afford a dildo someday? What, is she wanting a solid gold one?
Perhaps she is now realizing that her doctorate in Underwater Basket Weaving in the Gobi Desert isn't as lucrative as she had thought it would be?
If she read L'Engle, she'd know love is a verb.
I keep seeing different cut off ages in the red-pill communities...
I think the cut off age has a lot of variables like sexual experience, genetics, and how she's treated her body. For instance, all the people who drank and partied a lot in college just looked older than those who didn't. If a woman avoids things that make her look older like partying and smoking and not getting enough sleep, it raises her expiration date. Combine that with making the most of her looks with exercise and good styling. There's always hope, especially if she has realistic expectations.
@Keb:
There's not always easy pat answers for solving some problems. That being said, improving your looks isn't impossible. The biggest problem women face is getting fat, and getting fat is entirely avoidable and you can recover from it with enough determination.
The other thing is learning how to flirt and be pleasant to be around. From my personal experience, women don't know how to flirt effectively which is why they often leave all responsibility on men to initiate romance. Similarly, there are women whose company I enjoy even if they're not the most physically attractive if only because they are enjoyable to be around. Many women are simply boring, with boring interests and a closed-minded hostility to things that aren't on their list of approved topics -- Don't be like them.
She's likely late 20's/early 30's. That's ground-zero of second-wave (faithless) feminism.
The bright line cut-off is whether they got on the gravy train before the crash. Post-crash members of the rising generation are dramatically different as I'm seeing in my high school students.
"Desiderius said...
This is fascinating post, but jumping on the young woman may not be the wisest course. I'm thinking she's in the initial stages of coming to grips with how ill-served she's been by the culture/educational establishment who gave her "Dover Beach" and Phillip Pullman and expected her to be inspired by them.
..."
When the truth peeks its head out you must pin it down and examine it and then pull your friends close so they can examine it as well. This is even more critical when the truth is clothed in untruth. The exercise builds discernment, which is sorely lacking in modern society.
"Desiderius said...
She's likely late 20's/early 30's. That's ground-zero of second-wave (faithless) feminism.
The bright line cut-off is whether they got on the gravy train before the crash. Post-crash members of the rising generation are dramatically different as I'm seeing in my high school students.
November 20, 2012 5:58 AM "
Different how?
I actually did a fairly in-depth research paper in grad school comparing Pullman and Lewis (the obvious), but also Tolkien. Tolkien would despise Pullman.
I'd like to read it. Please email it to me if you still have it.
"'I actually did a fairly in-depth research paper in grad school comparing Pullman and Lewis (the obvious), but also Tolkien. Tolkien would despise Pullman.'
I'd like to read it. Please email it to me if you still have it."
My God you people are so damn interesting! Where are the people like this in my regular, flesh-and-blood life"?
What's interesting is that so many women who shudder at the idea of being a kitchen ornament, have never been asked to be one. And won't be.
Keep reading, babe. You've got it all figured out.
@Walt: Well, I'm still stuck at wondering what a "kitchen ornament" is. I mean, if you're in the kitchen, you're probably not an ornament - cooking is serious business! So I just don't understand how that even makes sense.
VD,
"Please email it to me if you still have it."
It's three computers back, I'll see if I can dig it up.
The good is different than the beautiful. Tolkien fell out with Lewis over Narnia since it is not beautiful (as LotR is), but they are both nonetheless good.
In seeking to create the anti-Lewis, Pullman instead created the anti-Tolkien.
Tolkien's work is true, good, and beautiful. Pullman's false, evil, and ugly.
"Different how?"
They are comfortable with gender differences, indeed enjoy them, and they know PC is bullshit and have no respect for anyone who fears it.
The Hunger Games is an accurate depiction of their take on the Me Generation (the Boomers).
"When the truth peeks its head out you must pin it down and examine it and then pull your friends close so they can examine it as well. This is even more critical when the truth is clothed in untruth. The exercise builds discernment, which is sorely lacking in modern society."
Agree wholeheartedly.
But the truth is that the Boomers sold their birthright of liberal civilization for a mess of self-righteous PC bullshit (it was the only way they could beat the Greatest Generation - by lying about the culture they passed on to them).
The following generations thus didn't get their birthright at all. All they were taught was the PC bullshit. Being angry at them for not understanding the norms of liberal civilization when they were not taught them, indeed were instead taught a lie that defamed them, makes no sense.
Elena,
"@Walt: Well, I'm still stuck at wondering what a "kitchen ornament" is. I mean, if you're in the kitchen, you're probably not an ornament - cooking is serious business! So I just don't understand how that even makes sense."
It's the Handmaid's Tale. An Old Wives Tale intended to scare children into being PC. Temporarily successful.
See the movie The Village for an apt depiction of how it works.
Here is this Doctor's advice to the woman:
"Biscuits in the oven, and the buns in bed".
No charge.
Unfortunately (or not?..) even the people with low standards have SOME shallowness, and if you manage to see at least some in yourself (there always is some, even if everyone around you is disgusted with how low SMV you can accept), you won't feel so bad about men having it. As long as he has a wife goggles ability, it should be fine.
"Love doesn’t “just happen”. That is infatuation. Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end. But those who are full of pride, anger, and bitterness cannot be expected to have any idea what love is."
Brilliant. Total agreement here. True love isn't a merely a fickle emotional attachment.
Yes, men most certainly can have in depth conversations while women can't.
I remember sitting with 2 other guys and having a discussion on whether time was actually real. It was complete bullshit, but it certainly had depth.
All of us have gotten out of the military and dislike even the very concept, and none of us have a college degree. Not even close.
Yes, men most certainly can have in depth conversations while women can't.
You are wrong. Women absolutely can. They just generally do not. There is huge difference in those two statements.
I was so unimpressed with Pullman that I stopped listening through The Golden Compass, something that is quite odd for me to do with anything that I start.
I hate to sound like the Manosphere broken record but...the guys who "appreciate" a woman's intelligence and want a "deep relationship" are out there, and they are out there in droves...but women don't want them unless they have the "shallow" attraction traits to start.
I was always the guy who wanted and offered...let me scroll back up to quote her correctly..."depth, style, substance or compatibility." No one chose me. Going again to the game tenet that women don't understand their own desires and can't articulate them, even the girls who said they wanted these "deep" things tried to get them from guys who were classically attractive (tall, fit, high-status, socially dominant). IOW, no woman was choosing a guy _because_ of these intellectual traits.
So I wager this woman is a lot more shallow than she even wants to believe, unless she can show us photos of all the pasty Poindexter types she went tingle-crazy for because they could riff on Hegel and Koestler.
When I was leaving high school, I was told college (at a good school where everybody was smart) was going to be a real feast of the mind, with obligatory apologisms that "women are more mature in college" and would better appreciate my brainy nature.
If someone had told me to be attractive first and then I'd have my pick of the smart girls once I had shown the ability to turn them on, I may not have had any more success but I'd have had a much less frustrating experience. Now that I know how to attract women, I find I have my pick of the smart ones.
Badger - you make some valid points. First of all, in fairness, men don't want women unless they have the "shallow" attractions first. One point where men and women diverge is that most men who are interested in intelligent women, will take an attractive and intelligent woman who perhaps doesn't have a college degree or high paying job. Women, on the other hand, who are not only highly intelligent, but more importantly are highly educated and have good jobs will never look at a man, regardless of his level of intelligence if he doesn't have a college degree and what she considers a high enough status job. Rare are the women with Master's degrees married to intelligent and successful plumbers and carpenters - perish the thought!
Spacebunny,
That's a very interesting point about status indicators. There's a lot of conflation of intelligence, education and status, when it comes to rubbing elbows with the right people (which going to an elite school suggests) and reading the right UMC/SWPL books. There's also a conflation between intelligence and verbal combat - cf. women like the OP who view being intelligent/educated as incompatible with being pleasant. It's all over the Manosphere that men find women bleating about their "intelligence" to be the sources of a lot of instinctive quarrel (smart girls talk a lot about "witty banter" which usually turns into a lot of verbal shit-testing).
There's a certain don't-take-any-shit-from-a-man ethos that academic feminism has boiled into educated women. I recall once at HUS where I delivered some direct advice to our beloved Olive to ditch her stated trait of being "argumentative."
Funny you mention plumbers (we'll leave out carpenters because the Good Lord himself came to earth as one) - plumbers are a skilled trade that are set to make big money in the next decade as the older plumbers retire/die off and the new guys find a labor shortage that means naming their price and time of service. Of course, Obama told plumbers to "spread the wealth around" so even he knows!
Yet they have very low status and are unheralded as potential husbands. However, part of the reason plumbers can make so much is that the supply is low, specifically because the trades have been socially devalued, and plumbers in particular are seen as the dirtiest of domestic jobs. "Plumber's crack" is a shorthand reference to the slovenly image of the profession.
My point here is as you made - even though the modern plumber is going to be both physically hardy and cash-positive, the low status of the profession means that a woman dating one might as well be dating a janitor. The gaggle will never approve.
Badger
smart girls talk a lot about "witty banter"
Generally they are at most half right...
My point here is as you made - even though the modern plumber is going to be both physically hardy and cash-positive, the low status of the profession means that a woman dating one might as well be dating a janitor. The gaggle will never approve.
Women are suckers for men who are good with their hands. And plumbers happen to be good with their hands.
All that matters is that the woman wants to f*ck the plumber. She will easily find ways to rationalize dating him.
Badger said...
I was always the guy who wanted and offered...let me scroll back up to quote her correctly..."depth, style, substance or compatibility." No one chose me. Going again to the game tenet that women don't understand their own desires and can't articulate them, even the girls who said they wanted these "deep" things tried to get them from guys who were classically attractive (tall, fit, high-status, socially dominant). IOW, no woman was choosing a guy _because_ of these intellectual traits.
At times it is even worse than that. A guy who is tall, fit, popular, etc... will actually see women lose interest if too many of these deep "intellectual traits" come to light. Yes, women love to think their man is smart. They just don't usually want to know the details. Even the rare ones who want the details are satisfied with much less of that than his male friends.
"Love doesn’t “just happen”. That is infatuation. Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end. But those who are full of pride, anger, and bitterness cannot be expected to have any idea what love is."
But that is exactly what I just learned about VD - being full of pride, anger, and bitterness, he cannot be expected to have any idea what love is.
I don't expect you to agree. I don't even expect you to understand.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.