I do know that there has been a constant blurring of boundaries between this blog and others as some have sought to bring ideas from those blogs to debate here. You have done this yourself, mostly using Roissy as an inspiration. Mike C is a Rollo Boy. Others here may be Dalrockolytes. I have referred to the introduction of these “toxic” ideas as “infecting” HUS.I regard the problem as a near-insoluble one. The challenge is that intersexual communication requires two-way communication, and women, for the most part, have zero interest in that. The reason the young women at HUS have been falling silent is because they have no interest in their opinions being challenged and their assertions being questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, instead they want to be comforted and have their decisions confirmed. For the most part, women prefer to treat their interlocutors as children who must accept Mommy's word as divinely inspired law; it can be more than a little amusing to see the shocked expression on a woman's face when one does nothing more than directly question the factual truth of her statement. The stuttering, hasty retreat that usually follows her realization that she's been busted isn't without humor either.
I know you are aware of the effect these conversations have had on my female commenters (crickets), and it’s long been apparent that a sizable number of women elect not to comment here because of the “gloves off” demeanor of the conversations. In addition, female commenters who do stick it out often weigh in with constructive criticism of the male highjacking of threads. Yesterday, both Anacaona and Iggles, I believe, attempted to express their frustration with the tenor of the conversation, and more importantly, the destructive effect it was having on intersex communication.
Don't believe me? Try saying this as politely as you can manage the next time a woman attempts to slide an obvious whopper past you: "I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Can you provide me with any evidence that is true?"
What I suspect you'll find to be reliably the case is that merely questioning the perfect truthfulness of a woman's word is regarded as rude, aggressive, offensive, and boorish. In femsprache, "gloves off" means "unconcealed disagreement". But don't take my word for it, try it out when the next opportunity presents itself.
As long as women are unwilling to accept having their opinions and assertions questioned, and as long as they prefer to fall silent rather than defend their statements, no substantive intersexual communication is possible. Now, obviously some women can handle it, whether they find it distasteful or not, but the observable reality is that most women either cannot or will not.
And men are well-advised to understand this is an area where most of them fall down. Most men are often inclined to let ludicrous statements go unchallenged, but they absolutely should not, because the woman making the statement tends to regard a man's acceptance of her version of reality as evidence of her dominance over him.
228 comments:
1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»It's true that women generally can't handle polite disagreement, but it's also true that some manospherians can be pretty impolite at times. I'm not saying Walsh can tell the difference, of course. Blind squirrels and all that.
By the way, I don't think women realize they're wrong when you tell them so. Their concept of truth and falsehood is 90% about expressing submission towards whoever is persistently socially dominant. That's not unheard of among men either, but men have to convince themselves it's factual, too.
What can a woman do to be a good woman, rather than a woman like the one complained of all over the manosphere?
Oh you're such a misogynist.
@Anon female
Generally, you can use the same formula as to be a good person:
Figure out what you want, where your talents lie, and what other people want from you. Once you optimized that equation you should be considered a good woman.
If you want more specific suggestions you need to narrow down your question a bit.
Ironically, I feel this is excellent advice when handling intrasexual communication. If someone is a fool, you should call them out on it. Another woman "questioning the perfect truthfulness of a woman's word is regarded as rude, aggressive, offensive, and boorish." It's not just a man thing, it's an in-group/out-group thing. This is why exclusionary cliques are such a big problem in female dynamics - I suspect feminism is so poisonous, because its' implicit assumption is women=in, men=out. Also why you will hear hard-core political feminists stating that women who disagree with them aren't "real women".
[In femsprache, "gloves off" means "unconcealed disagreement"] Again, a clique thing. Queen Bees really dislike this. Ostracisation is a perfectly acceptable punishment.
I've held the opinion that women are worse communicators than men for some time. At least since marriage, when my sister and my wife were both dancing around subjects in an effort not to hurt the other's feelings. Putting me in the middle and forcing me to lie. Which I refused to do for either of them. Instead I told each what the issues were. As a result they final began to communicate some.
The efforts made by women to "conform to the norm" and not hurt feelings far more often than not make things far worse. At one time at least a portion of this was to keep their mate happy. Now that men have been so demeaned and belittled by society they feel a need to redirect these efforts at a new target... Society has told them the target should be other women - who as a peer group fail to fill the role of their husband unsurprisingly.
The way women work things out in conversation reminds me of the Bistromathic Drive in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide books. It's sort of a joke on quantum mechanics:
"Bistromathics itself is simply a revolutionary new way of understanding the behaviour of numbers. Just as Albert Einstein's general relativity theory observed that space was not an absolute but depended on the observer's movement in time, and that time was not an absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in space, so it is now realized that numbers are not absolute, but depend on the observer's movement in restaurants."
So this spaceship was built around an Italian bistro, and to fly it, the passengers and crew sit at the table while robots take orders and bring dishes and submit the checks, and all this random movement eventually results in the right numbers to put you wherever and whenever you want to be.
That's how women discuss. They sit and take turns talking, never directly contradicting each other (though you'll get sideways little swipes), until a consensus of the hive is arrived at without ever being stated specifically. Nothing is ever debated or falsified, but they all go away knowing what the approved belief is.
That's completely different from the way men do it, where one guys says "A therefore B," and another guy says, "no, A doesn't lead to B, it leads to C," and another guy says, "back up, I don't concede A," and so on until someone's position wins out either through force of will or best fitting the facts. "Wins out" is important there; it's a competition of sorts, though normally a friendly one, and men are fine with that.
Women don't want to compete over ideas; it seems as boring and pointless to them as competing over the best color of t-shirt to wear would seem to men. But that's the kind of communication that online blogs and forums lend themselves to, especially if there are any men involved. Presumably, if you only allowed women into a forum, they could just chat like they do in real life, never actually debating, and consensus would arise. But that can't happen if a man comes in and says, "Hey, you're all wet here, this point doesn't make sense."
So I'm with Vox: if the question is how to have co-ed discussions online without driving away the women, that's insoluble. I guess the question is: should women have no-men-allowed places where they can work to consensus through emotional chat, or is that too unreliable and likely to go astray? Should men horn in and stomp down their discussions with logic, for the sake of getting to the right answers? I'm not sure.
Anon Female,
I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for, but some post that might help you out, here, and here.
I know the second is for being a wife, but given your question I think it can translate to being a woman.
One more big thing is thinking about your future and accepting the decisions you have made as your own.
Question.
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that many men think/argue/chat in a fashion similar to women? That is, they tiptoe on eggshells, waiting for a consensus to emerge?
When you question their conclusions, they scrunch up their eyebrows and start laying out the naked assertions?
@Cail: I don't think male or female-only spaces are bad on their own - I like my knitting group, my brother like to fish, etc. But isn't the issue in question with Susan Walsh's site the fact that women go there specifically to find information on why their romantic lives are failing and solve it? That is her whole schtick, AFAIK.
Anyway, if they don't want to even listen or discuss the issue with other men - men they don't know, will never meet, and thus are probably reasonably objective - how are they ever going to solve the issue they're having in real life? I mean, good lord, you don't have to take someone's advice, but it won't kill you to listen. It's not personal, after all.
It's not personal, after all.
But it feels personal and too many women take it that way. The women take is personally and the men don't. It's where a lot of the communication breaks down, I think. So I guess the question is, should men be told they have to consider women's personal feelings or should women be told it's not personal? If one wants to have a productive discussion it must be the latter.
What can a woman do to be a good woman, rather than a woman like the one complained of all over the manosphere?
Say what you mean, mean what you say. Recognize that you and the center of the universe are not the same point.
Pretty simple, really.
I guess the question is: should women have no-men-allowed places where they can work to consensus through emotional chat, or is that too unreliable and likely to go astray? Should men horn in and stomp down their discussions with logic, for the sake of getting to the right answers?
Yes, why shouldn't they? No, men should not horn in and stomp down their discussions. Of course, men need not accept the collective female conclusions either.
I'm not criticizing HUS here, I am merely expressing my skepticism that the experiment is viable. So far, my skepticism appears to be justified, as only a very small number of women there appear to be both capable and interested in a discourse that includes men.
Of course, it doesn't help that the men most inclined to actively participate there tend to be the men from whom the women there least need to hear.
What can a woman do to be a good woman, rather than a woman like the one complained of all over the manosphere?
Based on today's posts here and at Athol's, be open to criticism, understand that being asked to back up your opinions and assertions is not an insult, and don't forget to deliver when you promise raincheck sex.
Anyway, if they don't want to even listen or discuss the issue with other men - men they don't know, will never meet, and thus are probably reasonably objective - how are they ever going to solve the issue they're having in real life?
That is indeed the fatal flaw that I have identified there. But, as I mentioned, the fact that most of the men there are more or less inept with regards to women tends to compound that problem.
"I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Can you provide me with any evidence that is true?"
I participated in many posts in other discussion groups. Many times I just post innoculous throw away observations not meant to offend. The problem is such requests is not that providing evidence will validate such observation, but the person making such request is both lazy (not willing to even look up their own curiousity) and is unwilling to believe my sources when provided.
I prefer if it the request is best phrased as "Please explain at how you arrive at your conclusion. I don't understand."
When men make the request of other men, he is being snide. To truly fulfill such request means many minutes of looking up such facts and then explaining things. I've done it on occasion and now I just refuse. I now ask them to give me evidence of why they doubt me. Often, they are inconsistent about their question. They haven't even thought about it seriously.
I do think it is necessary to question a woman, but it depends on what point you're trying to argue.
"The efforts made by women to "conform to the norm" and not hurt feelings far more often than not make things far worse. At one time at least a portion of this was to keep their mate happy. Now that men have been so demeaned and belittled by society they feel a need to redirect these efforts at a new target... Society has told them the target should be other women - who as a peer group fail to fill the role of their husband unsurprisingly." Orion
As a woman I say Amen, amen, and again amen. This is the natural starting point for all women, even those of us who don't play the girl game.
Cail, your observations are spot on as well. I can't tell you how many times I've had a visceral reaction to a man's negative comment to one of mine on a blog. It shut me down, but after having some time to think through the arguements and engaging in some self chastisement for my emotional reaction I begin to see the rational. I've come to understand that as a woman I will always react with my emotions first. However I endeavour to discipline myself to watch for it waiting till the emotion is past before I continue. Sadly feminisation has led to the selfindulgent juvenilzation of our society, were the concepts of accountability and self-discipline are not taught. Young women will never be able to communicate until they are taught the self-discipline to monitor their reactions.
When men make the request of other men, he is being snide. To truly fulfill such request means many minutes of looking up such facts and then explaining things. I've done it on occasion and now I just refuse.
This is simply not true. First, I can back up nearly everything I say with some basis in fact; when I cannot I will readily admit that it is merely an observation or even just a supposition. Second, I regularly expose men making substance-free claims using this tactic.
Of course, as an op/ed writer, I am in the position of always having to defend my opinions.
@Stingray: I assume that if anyone, man or woman, is hypersensitive to perceived criticism as an adult, then their friends and family didn't haze or tease them enough a child. This is probably simplistic, but it works for me. You can change a kid's behavior or temperament (to a point). Can't really change an adult unless they want to change.
As for who needs to change in terms of communication: If you want a productive discussion, being polite counts for a lot. Actually, I think it counts for way more in the internet than in real life, since things can so easily be misinterpreted on the internet. This is also gender-neutral. I don't think much of guys (or girls!) who perform a hit-and-run firebombing in someone else's blog. Doesn't matter what kind: political, religious, sexual, whatever. But if someone comes and gives their opinion in a straight-forward, relatively neutral way, I'm not going to be impressed with another person saying "how dare you!" and having internet hysterics. It's the equivalent of taking your ball and playing by yourself.
Tl;dr - basically, I want to to make everyone read Miss Manners because I feel like the world would be better off.
Elena,
I agree that courtesy is a GOOD thing.
Too many men go Grobian at the drop of a hat.
Too many women think that being offended is the same as being in the right.
VD:
"Of course, it doesn't help that the men most inclined to actively participate [at HUS] tend to be the men from whom the women there least need to hear.
"the fact that most of the men there are more or less inept with regards to women tends to compound that problem."
As one of the men who has actively participated there, guilty as charged on both counts. But that simply magnifies the conundrum.
The men who patiently explain "the male POV" are middle aged, married or about to be married men with varying degrees of either (1) marital dysfunction in their histories; or (2) a POV influenced in no small part by their ages and past sexual marketplace failures or disappointments. They are the most vociferous in their views and the most willing to hear the women out. But, they spend most of their time challenging Susan and the studies she summarizes, many of which directly contradict the stated experiences of those men and others they've heard about.
The couple of players with respectable Ns who comment there and who are the most knowledgeable about male-female attraction are the men whom the female readership is all vying for and want for sex and relationships and marriage. Yet these men are simultaneously the least suitable for the LTRs and marriages Susan says she wants her site to promote. Moreover, those players tend to comment the least and share their insights the least. This is because they are not spending their time on websites talking about the concepts they learned about a few years ago after decades of misinformation; but rather have the genes/confidence/alphaness to actually live them.
deti
VD - "That is indeed the fatal flaw that I have identified there. But, as I mentioned, the fact that most of the men there are more or less inept with regards to women tends to compound that problem."
I'm not 100% sure this is the case for every one of these guys. I'm horrible at anything short of straight forward communication, but as you know I'm working on it. (and it has been a continually frustrating endeavor so far). but I suspect that at least one of two of the men I believe you are including in this group know full well what they are going. I think perhaps some of the point is to try and show this exact phenominon, and I find it a little amusing that it continually goes right over the heads of the women it is directed at. I'll be honest (and I've told Susan this) sometimes I purposely dig in and double down even though I know it wont actually solve anything. At that point, I'm not looking so much to find middle ground and instead am trying to point out just how flawed the whole discussion is. Will they understand? Probably not. But that doens't mean I won't keep trying. I'm stubborn and have time during my day to keep plugging away, so I do.
And as far as men sticking their head in goes: it is a public blog. Anyone on the internet can participate. I've said several times before that if I'm asked to leave I will do so. But as long as I am not explicitly excluded by Susan, I feel there is no reason to keep my nose out of it. If they want to have a girl only powwow, they'll need to move it to another forum, or Susan will have to declare martial law and kick the men out. I don't think she wants that, because I truly believe she values male opinion. But, that opinion comes with a price, and that price is learning to communicate WITH those men.
"The challenge is that intersexual communication requires two-way communication, and women, for the most part, have zero interest in that. The reason the young women at HUS have been falling silent is because they have no interest in their opinions being challenged and their assertions being questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, instead they want to be comforted and have their decisions confirmed."
The women who review and post at HUS could do worse than to emulate Susan Walsh herself. She certainly doesn't get it all right, and I have my disagreements with her. I think she has some blind spots.
Be that as it may, she is (usually) reasonable and willing to defend her views. She doesn't shy away from challenges, and doesn't hesitate to challenge anyone, men or women, on what she believes to be erroneous or factually bereft claims. She (usually) argues from fact and reason, and only sometimes lets emotion get the better of her. When she does get caught up in emotion, most of the time she at least acknowledges it. She is at least willing to examine beliefs and will consider modifying them as she did with our putting solipsism under the microscope a while ago.
Would that more women could do this, or were at least willing to try to do this.
deti
@Cail: I don't think male or female-only spaces are bad on their own - I like my knitting group, my brother like to fish, etc. But isn't the issue in question with Susan Walsh's site the fact that women go there specifically to find information on why their romantic lives are failing and solve it? That is her whole schtick, AFAIK.
You got to the crux of it better than I did. I agree that it's good for women to have their own conversations sans men. But when you're talking about online conversations, the black-and-white nature of text already takes a lot of the emotional nuance that women depend on out of the picture. And as you say, they're trying to figure out their problems with men, so they could use the male perspective, but men aren't going to present it the way they like.
And Vox is right that most men don't make any effort to present their words in a way that women will accept them; they just blurt things out like everyone's up for a battle of ideas. Even guys who would soften things in a real-life conversation with women don't tend to do the same thing online where you can't see the femininity of the people on the other end.
I still don't see a solution. If women only talk to women about men, it's just an echo chamber. They'll confirm each other's emotions and make each other feel better, but rarely learn anything new or gain understanding. Maybe sites like hers should just allow in a few men who are good at framing their words in woman-ese. (I don't go there, but I get the impression that's what she's tried to do.) Seems like a difficult balancing act, though, and you'd have to be careful that you're not shutting out guys whenever they sneak up too close to an uncomfortable truth. I could understand asking Roissy to leave, but if someone like Dalrock is too harsh for you, well....
But as long as I am not explicitly excluded by Susan, I feel there is no reason to keep my nose out of it. If they want to have a girl only powwow, they'll need to move it to another forum, or Susan will have to declare martial law and kick the men out.
That's fair. That's reasonable. But I'm increasingly of the opinion that she'll probably have to do that in order to salvage her mission. Which, by the way, I support, and is the main reason I've dialed back my own comments there.
There is nothing wrong with what you and the other guys are doing there, it just happens to be unrelated to the core purpose of HUS.
Let me be clearer.
The "conundrum" is that which Elena and Cail are outlining. Women are going online to HUS to figure out their men problems. They say they want to hear from men. They say they want to hear the male perspective. They (at first) openly solicit the male perspective. They keep getting the same advice from women that doesn't work every time they try it, so they want to hear something new, fresh and different.
But when that male perspective is presented, many women invariably make one or more or all of the following complaints:
a. He's wrong because the source is not credible or corrupted: "that mean man's viewpoint can't possibly be true. He's just a disgruntled, unhappily married man or has had a bad woman screw him over, and therefore his opinion is ab initio invalid."
b. He's wrong because she is unfamiliar with the viewpoint or phenomenon he identifies: "Dude, you're wrong. It never happens that way because I've never seen it and I don't know anyone who ever has seen it."
c. I'm not listening to you because you're not being nice to me and you're not saying things I want to hear: "those guys are being so MEAN and NASTY, talking about "all women are bitches who screwed them over"!"
deti
@Stingray: I assume that if anyone, man or woman, is hypersensitive to perceived criticism as an adult, then their friends and family didn't haze or tease them enough a child.
My dad called it "getting your goat," and he did his best to make sure no one could get our goat -- that we learned to control our tempers and let things go. Maybe a little too much at times; I have a tendency to let things go sometimes that I probably should take a stand against. But no one's ever been able to get me to blow up about anything.
So I do my best to tease the kids around me mercilessly, and tell them it's to help them keep their goats under control. They think I'm a little weird.
"They'll confirm each other's emotions and make each other feel better, but rarely learn anything new or gain understanding."
Bug or feature?
1. To confirm emotions and to feeling better is usually the purpose on any female communication. It is rarely (if not never?) about learning or gaining understanding. From a female point of view: what use do you have for gaining and understanding, when such make you feel bad, and you have no power whatsoever?
2. When a female is communicating and the male jumps in to offer learning / understanding he's failing at the communication, by not understanding the real request.
3. Given the same scenario, men usually want to understand the laws and principles so they can control the mechanics, regardless of the emotions involved... while women, usually, emotionally roleplay the scenario by making it personal, and try to cash in whatever there is on the table.
4. Females talk about issues so they can find a way to portrait themselves as the good / rightful / upperhand party. That's where the good emotions lay. Males talk about issues so they can change behavior or change nature so they can alter the outcome of things. Females talk so they can get a bigger share of whatever outcome is already on the table.
Dicks and pussies.
Anon female-
It's rare, but if you really want to be such a treasure, here's what you need to focus on:
Check your husband or would be husband. He will be good (i.e. forthright, a leader, principled, strong and on a mission that doesn't directly involve you) and will have full confidence in you, not lip service.
You will not bring him harm, ever (except for minor screw-ups for which you are apologetic), but instead good.
You will enjoy doing work for your house, not for your peers, and you will be shrewd enough about business to know it should never consume you. You'll hone interesting skills and be good with food - groceries, cooking, focused on making interesting things happen with life-sustaining meals.
You'll anticipate the needs of others, and find joy in doing secret work ahead of time to make special times for your family and the people that will contribute to the good of your family.
You'll be good with property, appreciating what you have, tending to it, and adding to it in substantial ways.
You'll enjoy exercising, not for the sake of vanity, but for strength, and will have a good time with vigorous work.
You'll be decent with a budget and its details, and be an encourager to your future husband's leadership in finances.
You'll like to make things for the household, useful things, beautiful things.
You'll have a charitable spirit, and be good to those who have real needs, while rejecting the motherhood of the state.
You'll be ready for disaster - snow-ins, hurricanes, economic collapse, without fear.
You'll look good, and so will your family. The husband you are looking for is one who is respected by many.
He'll probably be older and experienced in the community enough to be considered, at some level, a leader.
You'll be capable of being in business, but won't make that your main objective in life, and in fact will plan to use that sense mostly to provide assistance to your husband's success.
You will have real strength and dignity, not as measured by other women, but as measured by your confidence in your ability to survive the tragedies to come, and help those close to you do the same.
You will be wise, not because of your special insights, but because you studies wisdom, and are becoming capable of teaching it to your future children.
You won't be idle - you will be watchful, and like to run a smooth home.
You are the sort who will be a mother that your own kids adore, and your husband (again, not your peer women) praise.
You won't fall for charm, and won't chase your fading beauty into the grave.
You'll fear the Lord.
But Solomon wrote it far better than I ever could in Proverbs 31.
"If women only talk to women about men, it's just an echo chamber."
When a member of any group, be it women, men, liberals, christian, whatever, talks to only members of the same group, it's all about confirming each other biases and reaffirming emotions. In a way, that's also what love is about.
When they talk to rival's groups, it's usually about converting them, or destroying them. It's rarely about understanding or gaining anything other than a reaffirmation.
The ones that are open to change and understanding usually cannot be framed as belonging to X group.
This applied to genders, makes men, in general less belonging to the men's group than women are belong to the women's group.
Elena,
Regarding the teasing, maybe you're right. It makes sense. We were brutal with each other when children, friends and family. Regarding the rest, agreed. I think Happycrow said it very well, above with the caveat that it seems too many get offended even when the civility is quite plain.
1. To confirm emotions and to feeling better is usually the purpose on any female communication. It is rarely (if not never?) about learning or gaining understanding. From a female point of view: what use do you have for gaining and understanding, when such make you feel bad, and you have no power whatsoever?
All true. But if a woman comes to a web site and says she's looking for knowledge, is she A) one of the very rare ones, or B) lying?
When a woman comes home and starts bitching about her annoying friend, the man's impulse is to offer solutions (don't go shopping with her anymore). The wise man knows she doesn't want solutions; she just wants someone to listen while she vents. But if she actually asks for solutions, and he starts offering one, and then she tells him to shut up....I think at that point he's justified in calling her crazy.
What kind of women are going to HUS should be taken into consideration. The message then needs to be presented in a way they will hear and understand.
VD - "That's fair. That's reasonable. But I'm increasingly of the opinion that she'll probably have to do that in order to salvage her mission. Which, by the way, I support, and is the main reason I've dialed back my own comments there.
There is nothing wrong with what you and the other guys are doing there, it just happens to be unrelated to the core purpose of HUS. "
Here is my problem: I disagree with your last statement above. I fully see it as part of her mission to get women to understand men. Do you see that as well? If so, then women need to start getting this stuff, just like us men are constantly told to "just get it" on the Red Pill stuff. If there is ever going to be common ground between men and women, they both need to make adjustments. The Red Pill is many ways IS about men making those adjustment, but it can't be just men changing. Women also need to start making changes, and they can't do that if they spend their time patting each other on the back for being so empathetic and enlightened when they can't simply have a rational discussion with a man. Those college women need to hear what my grumpy old ass has to say FAR MORE than they need advice on how to filter out cads IMO. Honestly that stuff almost seems like common sense, but common sense isn't so common these days.
I assume that if anyone, man or woman, is hypersensitive to perceived criticism as an adult, then their friends and family didn't haze or tease them enough a child. This is probably simplistic, but it works for me. You can change a kid's behavior or temperament (to a point).
The funny thing about sensitivity is that it used to mean being cognizant of other people's feelings, and mothers were supposed to teach their children to develop this skill. Now it means being cognizant of your own feelings to the exclusion of everything else, and I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the precious-snowflake method of parenting that's prevalent today.
I also suspect many overly sensitive women did not have fathers involved in their lives growing up, had weak fathers/dominant mothers, or had distant fathers. One of dad's purposes is to tease his children and teach them not to react poorly to it. He should also be serving as a BS detector and not letting his kids get away with total nonsense. This seems the ideal way to train a girl to not end up as a hypersensitive woman. You know your dad loves you, you feel safe with him, and in this environment he can teach you over your formative years to gracefully accept criticism and the male POV.
"But if she actually asks for solutions, and he starts offering one, and then she tells him to shut up....I think at that point he's justified in calling her crazy."
Yup. But how often do you see a female actually asking for solutions? not demanding that something is done in a way that pleases her, but actually asking for solutions so she can understand / change / gain knowledge?
Ever?
It's usually the men, shoving unrequired stuff down their throats to no effect
"But I'm increasingly of the opinion that she'll probably have to [impose martial law and exclude male participation] in order to salvage her mission."
I support that mission too. And I agree -- it might very well be that HUS has to become a women-only forum. My concern is how effective she or any other woman can execute that mission in helping women with their men problems if men don't influence some of the discussion. Many of the women who comment at HUS openly say they want "the male perspective" (which they should have gotten from the fathers their mothers kicked out of the house and/or divorced, but that's another story).
I'm becoming increasingly convinced as you are, VD, that it's insoluble. Maybe that just cannot be done in any meaningful way, in large part because so many people have such strong feelings about them.
In the end, this is another instance, I fear, in which women are again trying to have it both ways -- they want a "male perspective", but they want it nicely tailored, soft-sold, and presented on a silver platter with a parsley sprig as a garnish. No mess, no blood.
"I just want to see that male perspective. I don't want to see how it got there or what's in it. Don't say any of that. I just want to see the finished product. I just want my sausage; don't tell me how it got here or how it was made or how you found the stuff to make it."
I am not sure that this is possible.
I contrast this with women coming into the manosphere. There seem to be four varieties:
1. Those who embrace and actively seek to understand us, warts and all, and help add to understanding. They accept us just as we are.
2. Those who view red pill men as helpful to the female cause of promoting marriage and family life, or who seek to incorporate manosphere ideas and ideals to serve female interests. This variety demands that men tone themselves down and conform to more feminine, "civilized", socially acceptable conduct.
3. Those who view us as curiosities to be examined and dissected, akin to science experiments. They have no idea at all what to make of us or the things we say, and stand around blinkered as they try to figure it out. The concepts here are so foreign to them and so antithetical to their feminist beliefs that they spend weeks struggling with the basics. There is one woman making the rounds of late who cannot even grasp the concept of male dominance. Not only does she disagree with it; she cannot see how it can even exist as a lifestyle for human beings anywhere. Just Does. Not. Compute. At. All. for her.
4. Those who are openly hostile. We are subjects of fear, scorn and ridicule, to be contained, controlled (and imprisoned or eliminated, if possible).
The manosphere to varying degrees tolerates them, hears them, tries to explain. At the very least it does not kick them out, at least not most of the time. Not so with many women, however. Many women insist on "women only" spaces.
It would be a shame if HUS has to become that; but if it does, I think its effectiveness and influence will be reduced.
deti
Does it really matter? Do you believe that if all the men leave that there is suddenly going to be honest, open discussion among young women there? Its going to turn in a clucking festival, each one omitting uncomfortable facts and ugly truths because it's not just men's criticism women can't stand, it's anyone's. Susan's ambitions for the site are based on a false premise, that women can have honest, open discussion. They can't. Hostile criticism at least reaches them. Excluding that is not going to create a warm fuzzy place for honesty, it's going to create a warm fuzzy incubator for pretty lies.
When you call a woman out on something she believes is wrong this is what most likely will happen...
She insults you, she says something that happened from her life or she saw on a tv show that verifies the lie, she insults you again...then puts her fingers in her ears and goes LALALALALALA!!!!
That's why women win every argument...they don't engage in it. If they don't engage in the subject in question and discuss like an adult...I don't get into an argument with them.
Yohami - "Yup. But how often do you see a female actually asking for solutions? not demanding that something is done in a way that pleases her, but actually asking for solutions so she can understand / change / gain knowledge?"
Although I know you are correct in this statement, I really don't care to be honest. I'm pretty much tired of trying to decipher what someone means because it ISN'T what they are saying.
The intended mission is to provide young women with information about men. It doesn't matter to me one bit if any single woman agrees with me or not honestly. If nothing else, there understanding of "men" is all right there in black and white. It is no different to me that men taking the Red Pill: the information IS there to be had, IF a man is willing to see it. IMO women have the exact same challenge to face, and understanding how men communicate is one of the primary things that comes with their version of the Red Pill.
Otherwise, all we men are doing with "game" is enabling women to continue being clueless, and we have more than enough of that in the world already. I couldn't care less if I'm making friends or enemies, I'm much more interested in getting people to think. Even if it means they think I'm full of shit. (as long as they actually thought about it instead of just feeling it...)
What is the purpose of blogs? Some are for personal exploration but as we know many are used to express opinions and offer advice. HUS is an gateway blog to the manosphere. While civility needs to be the rule of the day in no way should HUS be girls only. That being said many of the young women will not like what they hear and turn away but there is that small group of women who will get it and will need to know where to go for more advice. That is why the male commentors need to stay, this is a grassroots movement and it is so important that you help link young women to other sites like Stingrays. It was the way Deti handled one young woman I sent to the site that kept her from running away from the truth. Thanks Deti.
Ted,
"The intended mission is to provide young women with information about men."
Whose mission is that? yours?
You're welcome, Anon, 10:02. Wish I could remember where, when or what I said.
deti
Ted:
"The intended mission is to provide young women with information about men."
I don't think Susan's ever said that. She's said she wants to get women into relationships and get them married. Getting them information about men is a secondary byproduct, it seems to me.
deti
Women also need to start making changes, and they can't do that if they spend their time patting each other on the back for being so empathetic and enlightened when they can't simply have a rational discussion with a man. Those college women need to hear what my grumpy old ass has to say FAR MORE than they need advice on how to filter out cads IMO.
Yes, that is true. But why do you think college women need to hear what your grumpy old ass has to say? I have to confess that I fail to see any such need.
Nor do I think that male input is necessary for HUS's mission. It is a gateway point for Game. For that reason, male input at that point is not only unnecessary, but arguably counterproductive.
Yohami - "Whose mission is that? yours?"
From HUS:
Relationships have never been more complicated or elusive than they are today. Hooking Up Smart aims to help people figure out how to navigate the hostile terrain of the contemporary SMP (sexual marketplace). I support both women and men in their search for meaningful relationships by providing strategic insight, guidance, and perspective as they manage their social and sexual interactions.
Sounds to me like she is trying to give women (and men) information to successfully date and mate. Yes or no?
"Nor do I think that male input is necessary for HUS's mission. It is a gateway point for Game. For that reason, male input at that point is not only unnecessary, but arguably counterproductive."
IOW, HUS is to show women where the Game rabbit hole is and maybe go in a few feet. If you want to see how far the rabbit hole goes, take it elsewhere. HUS is Game lite, the Purple Pill (not Nexium; but Red Pill with some Blue Pill retained so as to help it go down easier). Hell, that's where HUS is now.
I'm starting to think HUS' female contingent has seen the red pill in most of its ignominy, spit it back up, cut it in half, and just swallowed half. If so, that's fine, but we'll recognize it for what it is.
I MIGHT be able to get on board with that for women. MAYBE.
But I'd tell men to steer clear.
deti
Well, in regards to the whole "closing comments at HUS", I have a request for information:
1. Who is the female audience she is attracting, in y'alls' opinions?
2. What problem are they trying to solve in their lives?
I'm asking because I don't read the blog itself. I went there once, was totally annoyed by the title (Instant Reaction: there is no such thing as hooking up smart! I've seen it, it never ends well!), and I thought the articles were sort of puerile. QED, I am not the targeted audience.
I'm looking at her site now, and I still don't understand her basic message regarding the relationship between the sexes, unless it's men and women are different, but also the same! Also, hooking up is bad, but not if you do it right.
But I have to admit, I'm biased towards my own observation and experience, which is a generation younger than her (she graduated the year before my mother did). I haven't seen just the kids who survived divorce, I've survived the kids whose parents never got married at all. I went through 10+ years watching girls try this in secondary and postsecondary education in the hope of getting a guy to "commit", and it never works.
So I assume these girls are trying to figure out what's going wrong...and I'm not sure the message she's telling them is really the correct one, which is basically "don't have sex outside marriage because you can't game hooking up".
OK, tangent aside, is she going towards a (somewhat) bad faith argument where she and her commenters say they want to know what they're doing wrong, but don't like to hear the truth from the subject of their query because it interferes with their own desires?
VD - "Yes, that is true. But why do you think college women need to hear what your grumpy old ass has to say? I have to confess that I fail to see any such need."
Because it serves the purpose of showing them how to communicate with men. To an extent at least. I'm about people knowing other people's opinions. To me everyone should know both sides of any issue, and then come to their own conslusions on it. Without my and other male input at HUS, those women will only continue to bathe in other women's opinions, and an echo chamber does not find the truth. Well maybe sometimes by accident.
I don't care in the least if any women there think I'm right or wrong. I really don't. But, they should learn to at least hear me out without throwing an emotional fit. Like I said, I'm tired of trying to translate for other people. They should learn to speak the language if they ever hope to be happy living with a native. Of course I don't represent men across the board, and in fact I'm probably pretty damn extreme in some ways (communication wise) But, if they can learn to deal with me, they've got a vast majority of men in the bag in terms of understanding communication styles.
yeah, I'm working on rhetoric because *I* want to understand the native I live with. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be doing the same. (not saying that she isn't, but again in a general sense I believe women should be trying just as hard to understand us as we are them.)
Unless the goal is to never find common ground. If that is the case, then this is all just good fun.
Ted,
"Sounds to me like she is trying to give women (and men) information to successfully date and mate. Yes or no?"
Yes
But the practical implementation consists on shaming cads, hating alphas, feeling sorry for sluts and praising the beta.
Which I wouldnt phrase as "giving information" but just selling a point of view.
Deti - "I'm starting to think HUS' female contingent has seen the red pill in most of its ignominy, spit it back up, cut it in half, and just swallowed half. If so, that's fine, but we'll recognize it for what it is.
I MIGHT be able to get on board with that for women. MAYBE.
But I'd tell men to steer clear. "
And if Susan said so, I'd be gone today never to return. But, so far there has been no real declaration of such, and as I said above, until I'm told otherwise, my input will continue. I moderate myself far more for HUS than I do in any other correspondance I have with other human beings, out of courtesy to Susan. I'm being as 'nice' as I know how. And for that matter, it has earned me a few whacks from other men in the 'sphere. So be it. I'll continue on.
and we are still forgetting that young men find their way to HUS often, as some of the participation from younger men there indicate. If HUS won't show them the truth, they should know it's out there somewhere.
So I assume these girls are trying to figure out what's going wrong...and I'm not sure the message she's telling them is really the correct one, which is basically "don't have sex outside marriage because you can't game hooking up".
Exactly, furthermore, those girls don't want to hear that message anyway, because they don't actually want to stop "hooking up". They want to be like their friends and enjoy the illusion of freedom that it gives them.
Yohami - "But the practical implementation consists on shaming cads, hating alphas, feeling sorry for sluts and praising the beta.
Which I wouldnt phrase as "giving information" but just selling a point of view"
LOL. Well then, she or someone should clearly state that. I'm not translating, I'm going on face value. If information is what is being asked for, information of ALL sorts should be solicited. Otherwise, be clear about boundaries and shut down dissent.
I'm not trying to be an asshole here, it just comes naturally.
Ted,
The point is that for HUS mission to be successful, all it takes is these young women reject players / puas / even alphas and find a decent, slightly above average joe who's gonna be faithful and work hard for her and do as he's told, emphasis mine.
That guy is not going to have time to face the communication problems, because he's going to be too busy bending to her reality, trying to please her etc.
Guys who dont bend to the entitlements belong to the undesired bin.
Or that's my take on the issue.
The male style of communication is designed to reach the truth no matter the discomfort. The female style of communication has different goals and truth most certainly is not amongst them. So, in inter gender communication that is actually aimed at reached an understanding of how things really work, that aims at truth, the masculine style must necessarily be the preferred style as without it the truth will be twisted. There is no possibility of a 50/50 compromise or the dialog being being done in a way women find agreeable because whenever women at large find it COMFORTABLE it will not lead to truth. So the best that can be done is for men to cut some needless harshness, speak in ways that minimize women's feeling of being blamed but otherwise fully holding to their preferred style of communication. Something like 80% male style 20% female. Anything else is pointless. The women are here because the female social matrix has so taken hold of public discourse that it is impossible to learn anything try about gender dynamics from it. You had to come to men to get that. By pressuring for the same change you will just once again destroy the possibility of truth. So, learn to deal with the discomfort or go back to the insecurity of half truths and lies.
I might be projecting here, but I comment at HUS because I have a daughter who's about to be unleashed into this SMP and is chomping at the bit to go in. I'm there to learn and to hold forth.
I guess I see myself as a bit of a father figure. I'm older, I'm wiser, I've taken my share of lumps and wins. Maybe I can keep some of the young kids from making the same mistakes my wife and I made, if they just hear what I have to say. I guess I'm trying to do a job maybe their fathers could not or did not do, and that society no longer will do.
Ted, I suspect there's some of that in you too.
OK. The dad in me probably needs to stand down.
deti
Maybe women don't need to understand men to get married. What does a woman need to do to attract a man?
1. Be as physically attractive as you can.
2. Flirt a little (or at least be receptive to it).
3. Be feminine.
Now, that'll attract all men. So how does she just attract the good men who will make good husbands?
4) Be chaste. Don't put out before marriage.
5) Maybe have a short checklist of dealbreakers -- not 57 points for Mr. Perfect, but a few things like is he of my faith, does he want children, can he hold down a job?
Okay, now she's found one and he's proposed. Now how does she make sure they have a good marriage?
6) Submit to her husband.
7) Be loyal to her husband -- never take the side of others against him or criticize him in public.
7) Keep a pleasant home.
That's pretty much it: an 8-point plan to a marital bliss, yours for just $29.95. Note that at no point there does she need to "understand men." For men the red pill is about understanding themselves, but also understanding women because we've been lied to about what women want. For women it's much more about understanding their own femininity and role in marriage, and submitting to it. They've been told that men want sex and bacon, and that's true, so there's not a bunch of stuff they need to unlearn like there is for men.
Deti - "Ted, I suspect there's some of that in you too."
Absolutely. I have an 18yo daughter starting college this January, as well as two 13yo boys and an 11yo girl.
"OK. The dad in me probably needs to stand down."
Perhaps I should do so as well. But I'm not likely to do so unless asked specifically. If my opinion is wanted, it comes full on, no holds barred. I'm more than happy to curb it to an extent, but I'm not going to lie, and I'm not going to sit by and let stuff 'slide' for the sake of everyone getting along. If the point is to get to the truth and find commonality, letting stuff slide won't get anyone there.
Ted,
"If the point is to get to the truth and find commonality"
Yeah, but that's not the point.
Ted,
A friend of mine once asked me if I'd rather be happy or right. My response was, "But being right makes me happy!"
I wasn't kidding. But he had a point: if you go through life saying, "I'm right, dammit, and I don't care what anyone else says," you probably won't be happy with the results. You have to pick your spots with Truth, otherwise much of the time you'll just be talking to yourself after everyone else has already tuned you out.
That's almost always going to be true if you land in the middle of a hen chat and start slinging around male logic with no concern for their feeeeelings. At that point, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're hoping to change minds, you've failed. If it's some sort of personal catharsis, there may be better ways to do that.
I often use this as part of technique in some advanced Game.
With skill, you can call out a girl in the way this post suggests, send her into a tailspin by standing your ground, cutely quelling the situation, then banging her. Sorry I'm not more eloquent in the details but I have done it so many times it just comes natural. Ironically did it today.
I don't care in the least if any women there think I'm right or wrong. I really don't. But, they should learn to at least hear me out without throwing an emotional fit. Like I said, I'm tired of trying to translate for other people. They should learn to speak the language if they ever hope to be happy living with a native.
Ted, do you realize the irony of this statement? You're making uninvited forays into Woman Territory and insisting the natives speak your language. Do you suppose this has anything to do with your lack of success over there?
I dunno if you're versed in science, but as a man I think this physics analogy may help you understand why you're failing at your mission. Starting in the late 19th century, physicists were trying to make sense of a peculiar result involving the ejection of electrons from thin pieces of metal. What they were observing was that sometimes when they shone a light on a thin piece of metal, electrons would be knocked free from the metal. The classical theory explanation was that you should be able to zap a piece of metal with any kind of radiation and after a while the energy would build up and eventually be sufficient to knock loose an electron from the metal. But this wasn't the case. In some cases, no matter how high the intensity, no amount of radiation would suffice to knock loose an electron. Even more baffling, low intensities of a particular kind of radiation did suffice to knock loose an electron. After a few decades of confusion, it was Einstein who figured out that it wasn't the intensity, but the frequency, of energy that determined whether you could knock loose an electron from a metal. In other words, it's not the amount, but the type that counts. Einstein got the Nobel prize for this discovery (called the photoelectric effect), because it represented an momentous shift in thinking.
So, here's your problem: you're stuck in classical mode. You're thinking that if you just keep on "plugging away," the energy will eventually build up and suffice to knock loose bad ideas from women's minds. But, as you're seeing, it's having no effect. What is needed here is a shift in thinking no less dramatic than the one that led to Einstein's discovery. It's not the amount of persuading that counts, it's the type. VD has offered the type of persuasion that is most likely to work for women, which you said you're working on. I suggest you abandon your classical "plugging away" approach and instead fine-tune VD's "quantum" approach.
I love you, Stingray.
Yohami,
Thanks? I, too, think you're the ducks nuts, Yohami. ; )
I find it highly interesting that I have come across exactly the same complaints from women on spiritual forums where the men choose their words very carefully and no one ever talks offensively in the way many do in the sphere. Most people here would judge the communication as uber careful. Still the women complain about how harsh and hard and offensive the males are and how they are attacked and how it is an environment that is hostile to females etc. On a certain level it is like a shit test. If they can make the men adjust their style to be more agreeable to women some time will go and the women will start to put up yet another high standard and so on and so on until the men are totally feminized int heir communication style. This will be combined with changing the stands and applying them inconsistently so it will be totally unpredictable when you do something wrong and the standards will be used unfairly. Basically the whole thing follows a betaization script.
I think there are styles of communication that can work a lot better than others while maintaining focus on truth and responsibility etc. Dannys use of humor and charms allows him to get all the same messages across with far less resistance. I´m sure there are a number of other ways to game women into a different perspective in such situations.
Another thing I think works is to offer some sort of (token) understanding or sympathy alongside a criticism or confrontational statement.
To quote Cail from an older thread:
'On the other hand, for a woman who's been living the feminist-inspired lifestyle and is at least 25 years old, the main thing the red pill is going to tell her is that she's already blown most of her opportunities. She's already missed the chance to grab a great guy and start a family when she was at her most attractive and fertile. Her N count is already high enough to be a problem for the best guys, and her tramp stamp won't help either. She never learned to cook or clean house very well, so she doesn't have much in the way of skills to offer a husband except blowjobs -- at which she excels, but she's always planned to stop doing that after marriage.
To a man, the red pill says, "Things aren't as hopeless as they look. There are reasons for the troubles you've had with women, and there are things you can do about it." To most women, it says, "You're kinda screwed. The things you've been working on -- a career, your social life, your prowess in bed -- aren't going to land you a good husband or make you happy. In fact, they're going to work against you, because you weren't working on the right things. You can start over, but you'll be working with some big handicaps now. You'd better stop looking at handsome doctors your own age and start looking at portly IT guys 10 years older than you."
Not too surprising that they aren't interested.'
I thank that's at the bottom of the issue.
Höllenhund
Stickwick - "So, here's your problem: you're stuck in classical mode. You're thinking that if you just keep on "plugging away," the energy will eventually build up and suffice to knock loose bad ideas from women's minds. But, as you're seeing, it's having no effect. What is needed here is a shift in thinking no less dramatic than the one that led to Einstein's discovery. It's not the amount of persuading that counts, it's the type. VD has offered the type of persuasion that is most likely to work for women, which you said you're working on. I suggest you abandon your classical "plugging away" approach and instead fine-tune VD's "quantum" approach."
Thanks for the insight. I agree with you actually, and indeed I am working on alternative communication styles. that being said, I have no desire to abondon the one I already have. I like it and it suits me. My personal goal is to actively use both in fact. The latest incident over there was started by some remarks that I and other men there saw as inflammatory, and of course I'm going to fall back on what I know. If you look at my posting there over the last month or so, you'd see I'm making attempts to change my style. (and I've been called out for bending over backwards for women in doing so...) It hasn't really changed things, but it takes time I suppose.
But if anyone, man or woman wants to turn on the flamethrower, I'm more than capable of returning fire. And in some sick sense I enjoy it in fact. I find it much easier to be an asshole than a reasonable person. I am only reasonable because it serves a goal of mine. Otherwise, why put in all that effort?
Ted,
"I am only reasonable because it serves a goal of mine. Otherwise, why put in all that effort? "
There.
I don't understand the men who have the time to wade through all the crappy comments at HUS. It isn't nearly as bad as Jizzabath, but it isn't that far off either. It's like being the beta boy providing the shoulder to cry on for the hottie you're orbiting.
At one point I enjoyed dropping some truth over there, without worrying overmuch about being AWCA or not. And it had a positive effect, but I really don't have time to do it, and realized it did absolutely zero good in the long run.
Because solipsism is a feature, not a bug. You aren't, ever, going to change that aspect of females.
Sorry Teddy, you're wasting your time. But since it's free, go ahead and spend your time capital if it floats your boat.
JC - "Sorry Teddy, you're wasting your time. But since it's free, go ahead and spend your time capital if it floats your boat."
The honest truth is I spend 8 hours a day sitting in front of a computer doing any number of tasks. I tend to pull up my browser in the morning, and hit it in those moments of the day where I'm waiting for something to complete, or when there just isn't much going on. As I sit typing here, I'm also working through a queue of tickets waiting for processing, and keeping track of several ongoing projects by email.
You don't see me posting much outside the 9-5 M-F timeframe, because I don't waste my free time. ;-)
If my opinion is wanted, it comes full on, no holds barred. I'm more than happy to curb it to an extent, but I'm not going to lie, and I'm not going to sit by and let stuff 'slide' for the sake of everyone getting along. If the point is to get to the truth and find commonality, letting stuff slide won't get anyone there.
Which is fine. The problem that I'm seeing is that no one asked for your opinion there. The fact that no one has explicitly told you to put a sock in it should not be confused with your opinion being actively sought.
Granted, no one has actually asked for your opinion here either, but the same strictures and mission do not apply so it's not an issue.
You'd better stop looking at handsome doctors your own age and start looking at portly IT guys 10 years older than you." Not too surprising that they aren't interested.'
True. And when the comment is coming from a portly IT guy 10 years older, one can hardly blame a girl for being just a bit suspicious of the advice....
Elena,
I wouldn't put things quite so harshly - Susan's problem is not bad faith, but a paucity of good - but you are correct that the generational divide is likely too wide to bridge without a serious reduction in a solipsism she's spent a lifetime perfecting.
Not just her, of course - it's the Me Generation disease.
I left because she is unrelentingly Matronizing. That is not a criticism - like a good mother, she'll keep nipping at her chicks until we leave the nest. I've now in fact taken wing.
She'd have more success were she willing to do likewise w/ female readers, but I think she yearns to obviously for their validation to play that role effectively.
The statements of sweeping misogyny in this thread are inaccurate in my experience - we as a people have lost the art of clear-eyed self-criticism.
VD - "Which is fine. The problem that I'm seeing is that no one asked for your opinion there. The fact that no one has explicitly told you to put a sock in it should not be confused with your opinion being actively sought.
Granted, no one has actually asked for your opinion here either, but the same strictures and mission do not apply so it's not an issue."
Unless it says no trespassing or loitering, I'm free to hang out, right? I've actually been told by Susan that my opinion is wanted and useful, but perhaps only the parts that HUS in general agree with are wanted? If so, that is fine. I'll simply stop posting there, because I'm not interested in censoring myself. As it is I do a good bit of sensoring before I hit the submit button.
The same goes here for that matter. I fully appriciate you taking the time and effort to provide this venue. If my contribution is unwanted, it is only a matter of asking to have it removed. But, asking me to provide my input in a format YOU desire seems wrong, considering the public nature OF the venue.
If anyone wants full control of anything public facing, they either need to make it private, or clearly outline the rules and enforce them. So it comes down to what is more important:
Law and order
Or peace and harmony.
On this blog, only you can decide which it will be. The same stands true for other blogs as well.
Desi - Good to see you are still kicking it!
I noticed you "fled the nest" and was hoping it was by choice and not something that life threw at you.
I was always a pain in the ass to my mother. Perhaps there is some element to this from that relationship?... Something to ponder further.
I fully appriciate you taking the time and effort to provide this venue. If my contribution is unwanted, it is only a matter of asking to have it removed. But, asking me to provide my input in a format YOU desire seems wrong, considering the public nature OF the venue.
You're quite welcome. And I'm not going to ask you to provide your input in any particular format. But the rules of engagement are much more lax here than Susan's audience - not Susan herself, note - can handle. You don't seem to recognize that Susan is caught between a rock and a hard place concerning her preferences and her need to cater to her primary audience.
I'm not telling you not to comment there or even to change your style. I am simply encouraging you, and other male commenters, to be more cognizant of the difficult position she is in.
Now, I actually think that she is wrong and that the controversy stokes her readership even though many of the women comment less, but then, I am biased towards controversy so I could easily be off base there.
VD,
While I'm apt to agree with you in a broader sense, I actually disagree with this post as it relates to the HUS community. There was a time when HUS was full of productive intersexual dialogue, and the ladies who came by and stuck it out really were interested in learning something.
Those same ladies are not excusing themselves from the conversation now because they don't want to hear what the men have to say; it's that they've heard it all before, or at least most of them have.
In any case, Yohami always has the best comments:
"When they talk to rival's groups, it's usually about converting them, or destroying them. It's rarely about understanding or gaining anything other than a reaffirmation.
The ones that are open to change and understanding usually cannot be framed as belonging to X group."
Pretty much.
I find it much easier to be an asshole than a reasonable person. I am only reasonable because it serves a goal of mine.
That applies to everyone, Ted. To employ another quantum physics analogy, asshole/bitch is the ground state for all human beings. Reasonable is a higher, and thus inherently unstable, state. People sometimes misconstrue reasonable as the ground state for Western men, because they have been bred to maintain the unstable reasonable state for prolonged periods of time.
Anyway, one has to be careful with the definition of "asshole." Judging by the reactions of a lot of women to the well-intentioned reasoning of men, "asshole" and "reasonable" often occupy the same space. :^D
VD - "I'm not telling you not to comment there or even to change your style. I am simply encouraging you, and other male commenters, to be more cognizant of the difficult position she is in.
Now, I actually think that she is wrong and that the controversy stokes her readership even though many of the women comment less, but then, I am biased towards controversy so I could easily be off base there."
Point taken.
But if that is truly the case, then I'm back to wondering how effective her mission will be in the end. And I know very well what a difficult position it is. But, it is a position she chose to put herself in, is it not?
Question: Knowing that you support her mission, how effective do you truly think it will be without provoking controversy? In fact, how can anyone discuss something as controversial as "hooking up" without inviting it? (OK two questions.)
If better minds than my own feel that I am literally hurting the chances of success, then I will gladly butt out. But honestly, one of my concerns is that instead of helping overall, it may actually hurt in the long run. These young women may very well be just looking for a boyfriend, but they are also going to be in positions to enact change someday. (assuming they actually are Ivy League types with degrees in HR or some such) My thinking on this is that THOSE women, the ones most likely to be able to enact change, are the ones most in need of seeing the whole picture. I may be way off base, but it seems to be Susan's target audience is exactly who CAN make a difference, if one is ever to be had.
Perhaps helping them find a husband might help, but I fear that without knowledge of why they have so much difficulty finding one in the first place, many/most are destined to EPL out in 10 to 15 years anyway.
Judging by the reactions of a lot of women to the well-intentioned reasoning of men, "asshole" and "reasonable" often occupy the same space. :^D
Yes. I hate this.
"Anyway, one has to be careful with the definition of "asshole." Judging by the reactions of a lot of women to the well-intentioned reasoning of men, "asshole" and "reasonable" often occupy the same space. :^D "
I'm OK with the label to be frank. I know I'm stubborn, opinionated, and blunt. In "real life" I curb these by simply not interacting with people. When I must, I put on a good face and play the part as best I can. I don't want to piss everyone off, and I need to make a living, so I do what I must.
That being said, the few people close that are close to me seem to value my traits, possible despite my temperment, and I'm OK with that as well. I have no problem being the guy my friends come to when they need someone to tell them they are being a dumb ass, instead of the usual support of "you are perfect just as you are" that comes from most friends.
Sorta like from Hot Tub Time Machine:
"You know how every group of friends has an asshole? Well he is OUR asshole." (not actually a direct quote and I'm too lazy to Google it atm...)
Perhaps susan is trying to use the female consensus building format by subtly guiding that consensus towards her view. Over time and presenting information she can cause the general viewpoint to move over to that side of the street and being presented with a more harsh male viewpoint only causes the women to kneejerk back against it. In that respect a female only format would aid susans cause. ..especially since we know women tend to respond to sexually unsuccessful men.
@Elena
It's not just a man thing, it's an in-group/out-group thing. This is why exclusionary cliques are such a big problem in female dynamics - I suspect feminism is so poisonous, because its' implicit assumption is women=in, men=out. Also why you will hear hard-core political feminists stating that women who disagree with them aren't "real women".
Bingo. I don't think a lot of manosphere commentators really recognise how cognitively biased women are to herd-think and how important in-group/out-group dynamics are. It's also why women tend to be conflict adverse, as it threatens herd stability.
The other issue is that women "personalise" the subject. GK Chesteron once remarked, men talk to the subject, women to the person. It's a subtle but very important bias. The effect is there in men but nearly to the same degree.
This is why debating women is so difficult. If you win the point logically. from a man's point of view, the woman perceives herself as being "excluded" from the group. Biologically, this experience comes with a whole host of negative emotions.
BTW, this is not a conscious cognitive bias that women can change. They're hard wired that way.
This is why letting any large group of women join a discussion ruins it. The discussion quickly ceases being about the subject and soon becomes more an issue of group dynamics and party politics. Our culture of "politeness" i.e don't hurt another person's feelings, panders to this dynamic.
Susan Walsh has written at length about the negative effects of promiscuity and yet still calls her blog "Hooking up Smart". All the evidence points out that hooking up is dumb, yet Susan doesn't come out with an explicit pro-chastity position.
But let's look at it from her point of view. Susan is on the record as being an average member of the hook-up culture of her time. If she critiques it (the hook up culture of her time) she essentially censures herself and makes herself an outgroup member of the "good girl" group. Her biology is wired against this course of action.
This is not a critique of Susan, who get's far more criticism than she deserves, but rather illustrates one of the problems when debating with women. They personalise the subject so much that objectivity is really hard for them.
Note for those who are Aspegy. The herd instinct is a bias which women possess in varying degree. Not all women are the same.
BTW Vox, kudos for bringing up a very important subject.
I'm horrible at anything short of straight forward communication, but as you know I'm working on it.
Ted, you're such a pathetic hypocrite. You not only aren't trying, you are proud of the fact that your an asshole by your own admission further down the thread. You are not interested in furthering any dialog (as the saying goes) or helping young women to understand intersexual relationships and communication. You just want an excuse to bitch and whine like a little girl about how awful women are.
Space bunny - damn you figured me out so easily...
Cryan Ryan
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that many men think/argue/chat in a fashion similar to women? That is, they tiptoe on eggshells, waiting for a consensus to emerge?
When you question their conclusions, they scrunch up their eyebrows and start laying out the naked assertions?
Ha! I had a very similar thought while reading some of the comments from men on Dr. Helen Smith's blog. Guys who have troubled marriages, who were dumped or taken advantage of by women (ie. Deltas and Gammas), kvetch about how unfair life is and how afraid they are of their wife.. Another guy comes in and gives them some advice that basically amounts to "alpha up and take control of your lives" and the Gamma/Deltas start chittering like a tree full of angry squirrels.
Very female debate behavior from those so-called men. No desire to be challenged on their assumption, no desire to hear solutions, nothing by a demand that they be comforted and validated in their victimhood.
I'm starting to think that the reason Gammas are Gammas is that they have some female logic circuits in their brains.
"Susan Walsh has written at length about the negative effects of promiscuity and yet still calls her blog "Hooking up Smart".
In Susan's defense, it is a pretty catchy title, one that's likely to grab the attention of an early to mid-20s girl googling for advice re: sex and relationships.
True. And when the comment is coming from a portly IT guy 10 years older, one can hardly blame a girl for being just a bit suspicious of the advice....
Darn, you caught me! Of course, I wouldn't have written that the way I did for a female, non-red-pill-aware audience. It would have been about 5 times as long, sprinkled liberally with anecdotes and with disclaimers and weasel words like "generally" and "often" so they could imagine that it's about all those other less fortunate women out there.
I don't frequent the blog in question, but I do comment on a couple other game-aware women's blogs. It's clear from the comments there that very few women can handle the red pill, even when it's coming from another woman.
The red pill is based so much on hard facts like human nature, biology, genetics, statistics, and so on, with which few women are comfortable. They've been taught that you can be anything you want to be, that you can be a princess and a doctor and a rock star and travel to foreign countries and date fascinating men and add mother to the list at the age of 35 or so. All you need is a dream and ambition. And the red pill comes along and says, "Nope, not gonna happen. You're neither smart enough to be a doctor, talented enough to be a rock star, nor hot enough to attract jet-setting men, and the clock's ticking on the baby thing. Sorry."
That's harsh, no matter how much you sugarcoat it. Reality is harsh for people unfamiliar with it.
I'd imagine that a woman coming to a site called "Hooking Up Smart" expects something like the book "The Rules": tips for how to get the upper hand with men. If she's pretty, she had the upper hand when she was young, but now that seems to be slipping. The guys aren't circling in the numbers they used to, and the quality seems to be falling. So she figures she could use some new strategies.
If she arrives at a site that says, "Hey, there's no trick that's going to get you Mr. Perfect; you need to get busy working off that extra 40 pounds, stop cussing like a sailor, and learn to cook," that is absolutely not what she was looking for! A few may be at the tipping point where they'll stick around, but most will go elsewhere. So the host, if she wants more of them to stick around, can't have it being put that bluntly. She has to lure them into the frying pan somehow and then slowly turn up the heat. Not something many guys are good at.
I'm starting to think that the reason Gammas are Gammas is that they have some female logic circuits in their brains.
Likewise.
This is just a thought, but in learning about stoke and brain damaged patients in school, we learned the brain can rewire itself when given enough stimulus to do so. It takes hours of therapy on a daily basis but it can be done even at later ages. It makes one wonder if enough exposure to female "logic" could somehow rewire a man's brain.
"It makes one wonder if enough exposure to female "logic" could somehow rewire a man's brain. "
I am 100% sure this is the case because I believe I have seen a lot of it.
"I'm starting to think that the reason Gammas are Gammas is that they have some female logic circuits in their brains."
Likewise.
As I recall, a boy usually has two testosterone spikes during his development - one as an infant and another during puberty (the later one becoming a permanent deal, but the first one is a temporary spike). The explaination I've heard for the spike as an infant is that it comes during a major phase of brain devleopment and it's purpose is so that the brain grows in a way that will function properly with the high levels of testosterone that will come at maturity.
It's also a period when a lot of women are feeding their kids soy based formula. Soy is kind of an artificial estrogen. I wonder if there's a connection.
Sounds like whatever Spacebunny was given as an infant should be what we give young boys. Not as much of course, we don't want to create any more raging hulks.
The HUS intersexual communication dilemma: the desirable guys the HUSsies want to hear from aren't interested in them and therefore aren't saying much if at all, while the guys sticking around to post essay after essay are the fat IT nerds that HUSsies don't want and don't care to listen to.
Sexual liberation may be indispensable to female progress, but the hook-up culture is not empowering for all women. This isn’t to say that early marriage or abstinence is the solution. But these are not the only alternatives to the hook-up culture, either. There is a middle way: meaningful sex in the context of a non-marital relationship.
In other words, the solution is a dating culture, which still allows women to delay marriage and pursue their careers, and also lets them have those intimate relationships with men that they don’t want to delay.
This puts Smith and me squarely on the same page, as this reflects my own views about what constitutes potentially achievable change.
Susan Walsh supports feminism, but just wants to make it less destructive to women. That is not a great cause for which to fight, or support. The choice of dating culture over hookup culture amounts to demanding more from men in order for them to get sex. Some cause. Susan supports feminism, which is the destructive idealogy that has torn apart Western Civilization. Vox, I do not understand your support of Susan Walsh or HUS.
"The choice of dating culture over hookup culture amounts to demanding more from men in order for them to get sex."
+1
Sounds like whatever Spacebunny was given as an infant should be what we give young boys. Not as much of course, we don't want to create any more raging hulks.
What's the matter dear, I thought the boys wanted the girls to communicate like boys and be straightforward. Anyone who has been reading Vox on this site for any amount of time should be able to easily recognize that all of Ted's comments are nothing but solipsism writ large by a man, the very thing you keep deriding in women.
What's the matter dear, I thought the boys wanted the girls to communicate like boys and be straightforward. Anyone who has been reading Vox on this site for any amount of time should be able to easily recognize that all of Ted's comments are nothing but solipsism writ large by a man, the very thing you keep deriding in women.
I think they want a lot more than that. I'm not sure about Ted, I just find it amusing and ironic that on a "game" site, the hosts wife is more rabidly aggressive than any of the other commenters. I just wonder where the hate comes from.
@ Facepalm:
Smiling at the term Hate....I wondered the same thing about Spacebunny, a few years ago. Then I noticed a pattern.
She exhibits that type of attitude toward roughly 2 categories of commenters.
1) Feminists
2) Gamma boys
She'll interact with and correct other types, but she shares this with many other women here who have stated their own reactions to gamma types is a wish to punch them in the face.
I just find it amusing and ironic that on a "game" site, the hosts wife is more rabidly aggressive than any of the other commenters.
It may be amusing, but there is nothing ironic about it at all. Basic Game theory predicts that any woman who can hold the interest of a man of my socio-sexual rank will be inclined to despise gammas with the fury of a thousand suns.
All women dislike gammas, but the more attractive she is and the more she is accustomed to ALPHA behavior, the more contempt she will tend to have for the lower-ranking men.
This is not true. The females are scared off from HUS not because someone challenges their beliefs, but because of the tone - I've seen tons of angry males going into HUS and blaming females for everything.
szopen
Jesus Christ. I'm reading the comments here and I think some of commenters are really nuts. In short, some of commenters would try to convince females, by a way of logic, that females are inferior (they should submit to males etc) and they are surprised or even angry thatn females won't listen.
szopen
It may be amusing, but there is nothing ironic about it at all. Basic Game theory predicts that any woman who can hold the interest of a man of my socio-sexual rank will be inclined to despise gammas with the fury of a thousand suns.
All women dislike gammas, but the more attractive she is and the more she is accustomed to ALPHA behavior, the more contempt she will tend to have for the lower-ranking men.
Sure, incidentally it also illustrates another game concept, which is that women lack a certain universal moral sense that men in general posses. Often, the only thing more nasty and ruthless than the most ruthless man is a woman that considers herself to be under his protection.
As for irony, it's ironic that game states that men want agreeable, sweet, feminine women and what we see here from the wife of a "game" authority is something quite different.
All women dislike gammas, but the more attractive she is and the more she is accustomed to ALPHA behavior, the more contempt she will tend to have for the lower-ranking men.
True, women are intoxicated by success.
I just wonder where the hate comes from.
There's no hate dear, but the fact that you interpret it that way is highly amusing, not to mention telling.
As for irony, it's ironic that game states that men want agreeable, sweet, feminine women and what we see here from the wife of a "game" authority is something quite different.
LOL - you've got it wrong again dear. Men want a woman who is that way with them. They could generally care less about the woman being sweet and agreeable to other men that they themselves find contemptible as well.
THe fact that the red pill is a hard sell to a lot of older women because they have had time to make a lot of bad choices and need to work uphill more than they thought makes the HUS vision of reaching the young women important. The youngest ones are the easiest to change.
Oh and facepalm, the true irony here, is that neither you nor Ted has actually addressed what I wrote. In other words dear, you are doing exactly what you are all complaining about the women doing. You are reacting to the tone. Was what I wrote about Ted untrue? If not, what difference does it make how it's said? And if it's not true, why isn't it true?
There's a big problem with effeminacy among men in our culture, just as there is with unfeminine traits among women. That's why game, if it is to accomplish anything more than one-night stands, has to involve reeducating men on how to be masculine.
It's not clear whether we're born masculine and have it programmed out of us, or whether boys used to be taught to be masculine by their fathers and other men. Maybe both; doesn't matter. Either way, it's something most men have to learn today, while unlearning effeminacy.
As for irony, it's ironic that game states that men want agreeable, sweet, feminine women and what we see here from the wife of a "game" authority is something quite different.
No, you're again failing to grasp basic Game theory, which isn't surprising since you put the term in scare quotes. SB is very sweet, agreeable, feminine, and submissive with me... because I am a powerfully dominant individual. She'd probably rip your head off.
It's no different than with dogs. Our Dainty Flower is one of the sweetest dogs on the planet, but she could eat pit bulls for breakfast and has caused grown men to literally quake with fear.
Sure, incidentally it also illustrates another game concept, which is that women lack a certain universal moral sense that men in general posses.
Now this is generally true. Don't you see how it connects to the aspect you missed? It is also one reason why women tend to be much more intellectually malleable than men and adopt the ideologies of their mates.
The title of her site demonstrates the difficulty of finding reality. "Hooking up" and "smart" are at inherent odds. We were made to be monogamous. We strayed since the Fall, but the aim point is still the ideal.
I wrote that comment after reading the latest (I think) post and comments on her site. I skipped too many replies here and didn't realize it had already been covered.
I clearly not the alpha noted here, but I would second the idea that I want my wife to be sweat to me, not anyone else.
It's obvious that spacebunny doesn't hate Ted, she just has a low tolerance for his whining, bullshit, and hypocrisy.
Thinking that her statement comes from "hate" is fantastically solipsistic.
To interpret "you're wrong" as "I hate you" is a quintessentially female reaction.
The reaction from certain males to a blunt, honest statement from a female is exactly the same way that females at HUS react to similarly blunt statements by males.
So, for the whiners, note that your reaction to spacebunny's statement is exactly the same kind of female behavior at HUS that you're bitching about.
The females are scared off from HUS not because someone challenges their beliefs, but because of the tone - I've seen tons of angry males going into HUS and blaming females for everything.
The tone and the gamma whining don't help get the message across. With women, how you say something is much more important that what you say.
SpaceBunny,
"what difference does it make how it's said?"
This, coming from a woman, really?
@VD 7:29 AM - That is indeed the fatal flaw that I have identified there. But, as I mentioned, the fact that most of the men there are more or less inept with regards to women tends to compound that problem.
I sort of feel if you only want to interact with the 10% of men, you’re going to fail unless you’re in the top 10% of women. And the fact of the matter is, if you’re looking for advice on HUS, I bet you’re not in the top 10% of women.
Tangentially related, it also strikes me that women on such sites should be explicit WITH THEMSELVES about how their expectations of men differ from the reality of men. OK, sure, you want a hot, sensitive guy who will love you for who you are in the inside rather than the outside, and maybe someone like that is out there; but most men (ha, most WOMEN!) aren’t like that, and pandering to a fantasy of what men are like isn’t helpful.
@happy crow
Yeah, I think basic common courtesy (ie, no foul language/namecalling, keeping an open mind outside of that) is especially important when in mixed company because of the potential for generalized misunderstanding. Common courtesy provides the bounds of public discourse.
@Cail Corishev 6:32 AMYou got to the crux of it better than I did. I agree that it's good for women to have their own conversations sans men. But when you're talking about online conversations, the black-and-white nature of text already takes a lot of the emotional nuance that women depend on out of the picture.
The thing is, the internet is largely a public space. Unless it’s a locked board, I would never post something without the assumption a) any Tom, Dick, or Harry is allowed to say what they want, either about me or to me and b)Since it’s written instead of said, what I type will follow me around. Same policy for photos of myself. I don’t think is a leap of logic to base my conduct on; I feel American culture has pretty well-defined, common knowledge boundaries about public and private spaces, and the Internet is pretty firmly in the public sphere. So if you’re going to post about your man troubles on a public site, you need to expect someone may say something you don’t want to hear.
@deti 8:47 AM - b. He's wrong because she is unfamiliar with the viewpoint or phenomenon he identifies: "Dude, you're wrong. It never happens that way because I've never seen it and I don't know anyone who ever has seen it."
Yes, this is an extremely annoying response. I don’t think this is a male/female thing, but instead is a “blindness” issue. For this particular topic – yeah, OK, maybe she and her friends aren’t like that, but I guarantee you that every woman knows about the group of girls who are. By saying they don’t know what you’re talking about implies a truly impressive level of cocooning.
SpaceBunny,
"what difference does it make how it's said?"
This, coming from a woman, really?
Way to completely miss the point, dear.
"Way to completely miss the point, dear."
So the point was?
Spacebunny – “Oh and facepalm, the true irony here, is that neither you nor Ted has actually addressed what I wrote.”
With all due respect dear, I didn’t address what you wrote because it serves no purpose. You have obviously already made up your mind about me and my motivations, and no amount of logical retort is going to change that opinion. I have no desire nor need to validate or justify myself to you, and I didn’t. (although I technically am to an extent now…)
If you thing you can wrap your head around everything I stand for based on what I’ve posted here, knock yourself out. Perhaps you’ve read my posts at HUS? If so, please point out where I’ve shown no interest in having civil debate to come to a consensus. Otherwise this is all total conjecture on your part.
VD – “No, you're again failing to grasp basic Game theory, which isn't surprising since you put the term in scare quotes. SB is very sweet, agreeable, feminine, and submissive with me... because I am a powerfully dominant individual. She'd probably rip your head off.”
So is part of proper mate selection finding a woman that is satisfied with the level of dominance you want (or can) bring to the table? It seems that the desire for dominance varies widely from woman to woman, and you bringing dog breeds into the picture actually reminded me of something from my past. I dated a woman that worked for a vets office, and he got questions all the time about “what breed of dog is right for me”. One of the most important traits he pushed for families was a pet that was docile, and required little actual dominance. The reason was simple, young children are NOT seen as dominant by more aggressive breeds, and often times they will not only disregard commands from a child, but can see them as a subordinate that needs correction, which in the dog world often means a nip in the ass (or elsewhere).
So it strikes me that a woman may work on a similar principle. If a woman is highly aggressive in general, it stands to reason that she would require a more dominant man to be happy. I suppose the reason most men don’t realize this is that the word dominance has a very negative connotation in the modern West?
When girls try to communicate like dudes they just become more bitchy.
Because its still frontality applied to feelings, disgust or indignation - instead of frontality applied to communicate ideas.
You have obviously already made up your mind about me and my motivations, and no amount of logical retort is going to change that opinion. I have no desire nor need to validate or justify myself to you, and I didn’t.
And this is what we call projection, dear. I find you attempt to assign motivation to my comment in order for you to justify not responding to it very amusing.
, please point out where I’ve shown no interest in having civil debate to come to a consensus.
I would suggest you go back and reread what you've written here
,If my opinion is wanted, it comes full on, no holds barred
Yeah, that definitely sounds like you are interested in having a civil debate.
When girls try to communicate like dudes they just become more bitchy.
And yet, you guys are actively complaining because women don't communicate like men. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Bunny,
"And yet, you guys are actively complaining because women don't communicate like men. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?"
Bitchy.
Spacebunny - "I would suggest you go back and reread what you've written here
,If my opinion is wanted, it comes full on, no holds barred
Yeah, that definitely sounds like you are interested in having a civil debate."
What about my comment above indicates to you I'm not interested in a civil debate? "no holds barred" to me simply means I am not going to censor myself because the audience doesn't like what I have to say. IF you took the time to go over to HUS and read my posts there, you would find that I don't make a habit of picking fights. However, I also don't make a habit of letting comments fly by that I take issue with.
So again, you are making assumptions based on what I've posted here at AG, which is considerably less than what I've posted at HUS over the last year or so. My statment was correct, and you are making assumptions based on very little actual information.
But that IS what women are good at, no?
Thanks for making my point Yohami.
What about my comment above indicates to you I'm not interested in a civil debate? "no holds barred" to me simply means I am not going to censor myself because the audience doesn't like what I have to say.
"no holds barred" is not in anyway synonymous with "civil debate" or civility in general. It's not about them not liking what you have to say, it's about how it is said. The very fact that you are too obtuse to get this only further demonstrates my other point which was about your being at least as solipsistic as most women if not more so. Not to mention incredibly narcissistic. Thanks for further proving the point.
"...making assumptions based on very little actual information.
But that IS what women are good at, no?" - Ted
Thus the need for men to understand Game. So he may know how to elicit positive assumptions from the women he interacts with based on the little actual information she knows about him.
It is very important for women to make assumptions based on limited information. It's what keeps us safe and keeps our children safe.
SpaceBunny - ""no holds barred" is not in anyway synonymous with "civil debate" or civility in general"
And it was one comment I made from several which was not even my primary point.
" It's not about them not liking what you have to say, it's about how it is said."
OK? My point is, I'm not very interseted in figuring out how to word my points so other people can read them without having an emotional fit. I know it is "how I am saying it", and as much as I'm interested in learning how to say it differently, I really don't care if my presentation sucks. I'm not trying to win allys, just in getting ideas out.
"The very fact that you are too obtuse to get this only further demonstrates my other point which was about your being at least as solipsistic as most women if not more so. Not to mention incredibly narcissistic. Thanks for further proving the point."
I get it all to well, I just don't give a shit. I've been accused of being narcissistic, and "aspergy" (I think that is how it is spelled...) and to be honest I've scored VERY high on a few tests that look at such behaviors. So what? What difference does it make if I AM a narcissist? Does that mean I'm wrong at face value? Other than being obsessed with themselves (very simplistic definition but whatever) narcissists tend to be rather intelligent, cunning, cold, and calculating. I dont have one problem with those traits, and in fact I admire all but the obsession of self a fair amount.
Calling me a narcissist isn't an insult IMO. I don't have a problem with them at all.
Bunny,
"Thanks for making my point Yohami."
You didnt present any.
SarahsDaughter - "Thus the need for men to understand Game. So he may know how to elicit positive assumptions from the women he interacts with based on the little actual information she knows about him."
IF that is my desire, then I'll use rhetoric or whatever means is necessary. But, what if a man isn't interested in eliciting a postive response? If I have no stake in a postive outcome from a particular woman, what incentive is there for me to take such measure to ensure she leaves with a postive outlook on the exchange?
It seems an assumption to believe that communication is meant to please all parties. Sometimes the entire point of it is to cause discomfort, pain, hurt feelings, and to show a need for introspection and/or self discovery.
What difference does it make if I AM a narcissist? Does that mean I'm wrong at face value?
No, of course not. It simply means that you appear to find it difficult to understand that other people care as little about the ideas you are putting out there as you care about their response to your delivery.
Ted,
"But, what if a man isn't interested in eliciting a postive response?"
Positive doesnt mean your interlocutor feels good, but that the message was received. You're putting energy into the interaction - and it will generate a positive or a negative outcome.
So when you're not interested in a positive outcome... what are you interested in?
VD - "No, of course not. It simply means that you appear to find it difficult to understand that other people care as little about the ideas you are putting out there as you care about their response to your delivery."
OK I feel stupid for missing this. The thing is, people react, so it seems that they DO indeed care, or at least they care about my lack of caring.
I see the point though and will have to give it some consideration. I can see that not taking the time to format my communication in a more audience friendly manner CAN be seen as a minor act of aggression. For the most part it is mostly just indifference to how people feel about anything, not just my posts. "Feeling" to me is highly over-rated.
positive: the message was reached and the conversation continues, you and the interlocutor are closer, communication becomes easier
negative: message is misinterpreted or just lost, conversation breaks, you and your interlocutor are farther apart
Yohami - "So when you're not interested in a positive outcome... what are you interested in?"
I misunderstood the meaning of 'positive' in that context to mean that the listerner walks away feeling good. If positive means the communication was heard and processed, then I am interested in a postive outcome of sorts.
At the root of all this though is that I really just want people to think. I realize this is my personal bias because it is how I function, but it seems to me that many people simply act on feelings and never consider things in an rational sense before they act. In and of itself that is fine, but then those same people will complain about the outcome and look for others to bail them out. I would much rather everyone start taking full responsibility for themselves and THINK about the outcome before doing something stupid. Provocative communication usually stimulates me into thinking, so I tend to project that onto others.
My goal is not to make friends or enemies. It is to get people to simply stop and think, and many times hurt feelings/anger/frustration/etc will cause a person to do so. IME making people "feel good" may win you an ally, but it rarely gets them to think in any capacity, because in the process of 'winning them over' you validate their beliefs by being persuasive. I'd much rather just point out the obvious and let them feel offended. If nothing else that will hopefully get them to wonder how I can be so rude, and perhaps that train of thought might lead them to a conclusion that although I'm a rude asshat, there is a kernal of truth to be found from it.
"What difference does it make if I AM a narcissist? Does that mean I'm wrong at face value?"
Means that you desperately need other people to reach to you while you're unable to reach to them. You need other people to speak into your frame because you cant reach people into their frame. Means that you need other people to take care of you while you're unable to take care of them. And you need other people to give you an understanding that you're unable to give back.
And that you care about your shit and demand other people to see your way, like it was "the way", whatever limited views you have.
It doesnt make you wrong at face value, it just makes you wrong in general. Or, wronger. Because it's harder for you to get new things into your system and relate to others and to grow.
The narcissist in you demands that everyone else grows so you dont have to.
And this goes beyond intrasexual communication.
Ted, yeah, the main point in your case is that what you're attempting wont ever work. And you're at the same time indifferent to the negative outcome of your attempts, but you "keep trying".
You either dont give a fuck or you do. If you dont give a fuck quit already. If you do give a fuck, improve so you can get the results you want.
"You either dont give a fuck or you do. If you dont give a fuck quit already. If you do give a fuck, improve so you can get the results you want."
This right here.
Ted, I mean this in the most friendly way possible: you're not seeing results at HUS (particularly with the ladies) because you've covered the same ground 20 times and no one cares anymore. Your style of communication is not effective at this point, so you have a few options:
1) Continue beating your head against the wall.
2) Take it somewhere else.
3) Change the style.
Yohami - "You either dont give a fuck or you do. If you dont give a fuck quit already. If you do give a fuck, improve so you can get the results you want."
VD's reply above triggered that thought actually. Point taken. So now the question is, do I care enough about the outcome to put in the effort to change my tactics? If I didn't have children, the answer would be an easy no. But I do, and that means there is no easy answer to be had.
Thanks to you and VD yet again for pointing out what should probably be obvious to me.
Olive - "Ted, I mean this in the most friendly way possible: you're not seeing results at HUS (particularly with the ladies) because you've covered the same ground 20 times and no one cares anymore."
This is absolutely true. The reason I try "20 times over" is because I was under the belief that I simply wasn't stating what appear to me to be simple points in the right format, which turns out to be true. However, instead of actually changing formats (mostly because rhetoric and targetting communication to the audience was until recently a foreign concept for me) I simply reworded things but didn't actually change the tactic. I've had great success with this strategy when trying to explain complicated IT concepts to un-IT folks, so my experience taught me that if someone doesn't understand my point, I should simply repeat it with different word choice, which usually does the trick. However for these issues, that apparently doesn't work. So, while I believed I was going out of my way to rephase my points so people would understand, I failed to see that it was NOT my words being misunderstood that is the problem, it is that people really just don't want to hear the message at all.
Whether or not they SHOULD want to hear the message is a totally different point. In this context, the point is IF I want the message to be heard at all, I must figure out how to deliver it in a manner that is acceptable to the audience. Much like mixing medicine in with something yummy so your kids will take it. I can't help but think having to do so is ALSO treating adults a bit like kids not wanting to take their medicine though. Its an odd conflict, because I would like to treat people as equal adults, but find it difficult when faced with issues like this. I know, narcissistic, right?
Ted,
"Much like mixing medicine in with something yummy so your kids will take it."
Yep, but so do you - You also need your yummy stuff thrown into the communication so you can take it.
The narcissism is into believing that you're above it all, when you're not.
"I would like to treat people as equal adults"
The translation is: you would like to talk to people with your own language without having to learn theirs.
Like you're a german talking to a frech guy, insisting your way of speaking is the adult one. But it's not about adulthood.
In fact, that insistence of having other people one-sidedly respond to your needs, communicational attempts, views, etc is very child-like.
Adulthood: responsability over your outcome. Your attempts fail but you blame other people for the outcome. But it's you.
Yohami - "Like you're a german talking to a frech guy, insisting your way of speaking is the adult one. But it's not about adulthood.
In fact, that insistence of having other people one-sidedly respond to your needs, communicational attempts, views, etc is very child-like."
Yep, it's starting to sink in. I've spent most of my life avoiding people, so many of the skills I should have learned as a child/young-adult were completely lost on me.
More change. More growth. More learning.
and you'd think as a musician I'd have figured this all out. To be honest, music is probably the only medium I have that can communicate across a wide range of people. because obviously my writing/speaking has much to be desired.
And it was one comment I made from several which was not even my primary point.
Irrelevant -it is a statement of intent. Which was my point - your intentions. Fighting withdrawal much?
My point is, I'm not very interseted in figuring out how to word my points so other people can read them without having an emotional fit. I know it is "how I am saying it", and as much as I'm interested in learning how to say it differently, I really don't care if my presentation sucks. I'm not trying to win allys, just in getting ideas out.
You claim to care about getting your ideas out and yet, you readily admit you don't care about how you are saying it (not enough to really change at any rate). Sorry, but if you care about getting your ideas out, you have to care about how you are saying it. This is the blogosphere, dear, and if you become a scroll by, you aren't getting your ideas out, you are just talking to hear yourself talk, nothing more.
In this context, the point is IF I want the message to be heard at all, I must figure out how to deliver it in a manner that is acceptable to the audience. Much like mixing medicine in with something yummy so your kids will take it.
There you go.
"So, while I believed I was going out of my way to rephase my points so people would understand, I failed to see that it was NOT my words being misunderstood that is the problem, it is that people really just don't want to hear the message at all."
This is the part you still don't seem to get. It's not even the message itself, it's the way you communicate the message. Here's a very simple example: your writing is extremely wordy, to the point that I'd bet money most of the ladies(and maybe some guys) TL;DR your posts. And it's not because they think "oh there's Ted and all his bitter ranting," it's more like "there's Ted and the damn books he writes, no time!" Add in that you've been repeating your arguments but rewording them in a way you hoped they'd be understood and... well, you get the point. ;-) The concepts you've been writing about can be expressed in a much more succinct manner without detracting from the overall message.
"Whether or not they SHOULD want to hear the message is a totally different point."
This is the other bind you get yourself in. You think that people SHOULD listen to your message, so eventually they will, and if they won't, it's not acceptable dammit! Sadly the world doesn't revolve around your message, so if you want people to hear it, you have to present it in a format that's easy on the eyes/ears. Going back to the wordy example, people will not feel obliged to read a book regardless of whether the author believes he's the next Nietzsche.
So what? What difference does it make if I AM a narcissist? Does that mean I'm wrong at face value?
No, it means, as I stated previously, that people stop listening/reading.
Calling me a narcissist isn't an insult IMO
So? I didn't claim it was an insult.
I can see that not taking the time to format my communication in a more audience friendly manner CAN be seen as a minor act of aggression.
And this is what I do not understand about women. Just because you are not "audience friendly" doesn't make you even remotely "aggressive". But I do agree that there are a large number of women who would label you as such. I don't find it aggressive, I find it indicative of other personality flaws.
Olive/Space bunny - this is all true and I'm beggining to understand. And what sucks is the reason I get so damn wordy is that I truly thought it was a better way to get those ideas across.
But I've always been my own worst enemy. ;-)
It is to get people to simply stop and think, and many times hurt feelings/anger/frustration/etc will cause a person to do so.
And here is where you are completely and utterly wrong with regards to women. This does not make them stop and think (at least the vast majority of them)it makes them tune you out and ignore you.
I simply reworded things but didn't actually change the tactic. I've had great success with this strategy when trying to explain complicated IT concepts to un-IT folks, so my experience taught me that if someone doesn't understand my point, I should simply repeat it with different word choice, which usually does the trick. However for these issues, that apparently doesn't work.
Think of it this way - why does it work with IT and not Game? Because in general, no one is emotionally attached to their IT "mistakes", but women have a LOT of emotional attachment to their personal/sexual "mistakes".
I can't help but think having to do so is ALSO treating adults a bit like kids not wanting to take their medicine though. Its an odd conflict, because I would like to treat people as equal adults, but find it difficult when faced with issues like this. I know, narcissistic, right?
I don't actually think this aspect is particularly narcissistic, rather it is a failure to understand, as Vox has pointed out repeatedly, that often times women should be treated like children because that is how they act. You may not want to intellectually agree with this point, but there it is. Actions speak louder than words and all of that.
I'm with Spacebunny; I've never found you aggressive, Ted. Stubborn, perhaps, and resistant to change(one of which has been the changed discussion format at HUS). But I'd be lying if I said that didn't describe me to a certain extent.
"the reason I get so damn wordy is that I truly thought it was a better way to get those ideas across."
LOL no way man. Clearly you didn't write enough papers in college. I had a professor who stopped reading if a paper went over the page limit.
SpaceBunny - "Think of it this way - why does it work with IT and not Game? Because in general, no one is emotionally attached to their IT "mistakes", but women have a LOT of emotional attachment to their personal/sexual "mistakes"."
and this is why I repeated fail. I am woefully lacking on the emotional attachment side of things, because I'm not very emotional and in most cases do my best to squash any emotion I have on a subject. It is something I've been aware of for awhile now, but haven't made much success on correcting. To be frank, emotions scare me a bit. Too unpredictable, not nearly defined enough. Why so you think I got into IT? I certainly didn't want to spend my life in a cube farm! I simply gravitated to a field I was good at that lacked much in terms of emotional involvement.
Olive - "LOL no way man. Clearly you didn't write enough papers in college. I had a professor who stopped reading if a paper went over the page limit."
Actually I finished my degree (over a decade after I started due to lack of funds) online, which meant I had to write TONS of papers. Thing is, I aced them by simply padding them with pages of useless crap and feeding my professors the line of BS I suspected they wanted to hear. Which in truth didn't do much for my view on rhetoric or communication styles. I literally got good grades by writing crap I didn't believe in and expounding endlessly on them. Or at least that is how I saw the papers I wrote.
Ted, emotions are actually very predictable. Even in unstable people. Look at it as just another language, with another set of rules.
I am woefully lacking on the emotional attachment side of things
Well, I would argue that you actually come across as being emotionally attached to the ideas you are trying to get across, but that is irrelevant. It isn't important that you are emotionally attached to them, but that you understand that other people are and act accordingly.
"I literally got good grades by writing crap I didn't believe in and expounding endlessly on them."
Your professors weren't very good then.
My mom has an employee who I suspect had the exact same experience in school. She actually creates more work for my mom, because everything she writes is so lengthy and wordy that it requires hours of editing. The real world is not impressed by "going that extra mile."
Spacebunny - "Well, I would argue that you actually come across as being emotionally attached to the ideas you are trying to get across, but that is irrelevant."
Well anger and frustration are two emotions I have always struggled with controlling. But I don't punch people in the face when they piss me off, so I figured I had a good enough grip on it to survive life in civil society. But yeah, things I am 'passionate' about do tend to evoke them regardless of my desire to keep them out. I always viewed it as a flaw of my personality in fact that I couldn't completely control my emotions, which makes trying to actually get 'in touch' with them so damn difficult. (that sounds far more new agey than I'd like...)
Olive - it was an online degree. I didn't expect good professors. I needed a piece of paper so I could progress up the corporate ladder. I wasn't looking for a quality education, I needed a rubber stamp that proved I could jump through hoops.
There's no hate dear, but the fact that you interpret it that way is highly amusing, not to mention telling.
Oh boy, you're just so perceptive.
LOL - you've got it wrong again dear. Men want a woman who is that way with them. They could generally care less about the woman being sweet and agreeable to other men that they themselves find contemptible as well.
When it comes to women, men generally don't want attack dogs, although women have a tendency to become that way under them, especially under powerful men.
You are reacting to the tone. Was what I wrote about Ted untrue? If not, what difference does it make how it's said? And if it's not true, why isn't it true?
I didn't even read what he said, it's your response that's interesting.
Now this is generally true. Don't you see how it connects to the aspect you missed? It is also one reason why women tend to be much more intellectually malleable than men and adopt the ideologies of their mates.
Sure, it's a doubled edged sword though. Women are loyal to success. It's one reason that successful men are driven to maintain it ruthlessly. They know instinctively that their women are not loyal to them in particular, they are loyal to their success. Woe to the high flying man who falters and falls, his sweet and submissive hound, I mean wife, will turn on him with the same rabid ferocity and contempt she displayed for his former inferiors.
When it comes to women, men generally don't want attack dogs, although women have a tendency to become that way under them, especially under powerful men.
Missed yet another point, didn't you dear? Even after Vox spelled it out to you further up thread as well. Here's a hint. It matters not at all to me what you or men in general want. And as you've never actually met me, your opinion means even less.
I didn't even read what he said, it's your response that's interesting.
To someone as demonstrably obtuse as you, I suppose you might find it interesting. Of course, as I already said, it is your response that is the most telling.
Spacebunny you're reminding me of King A. All (clumsy) dominance game low substance.
King A turned out to be more interesting when he was debating moral and religious stuff and dropped the let-me-show-you-my-cock charade. Maybe you have that side too. Or maybe you really need to show us that big cock of yours.
No, King A has never been interesting
He posted some great stuff at Stingray's. But here he was a clown.
Lol yohami
Missed yet another point, didn't you dear? Even after Vox spelled it out to you further up thread as well. Here's a hint. It matters not at all to me what you or men in general want. And as you've never actually met me, your opinion means even less.
Well if you're only interested in what Vox wants you should say that, instead of telling us what men want.
Olive, Nov 8, 12:58 pm:
"In any case, Yohami always has the best comments"
Olive, Yohami is fucking brilliant.
deti
;-)
Ted:
"The thing is, people react, so it seems that they DO indeed care, or at least they care about my lack of caring."
The latter is more accurate. HUS and its female readership reacts not because they care about what you or I say.
They react because they don't like the delivery or the way we say it.
They react because it's coming from a middle aged married schlub with problems in a current marriage or a past marriage. They react because neither those facts nor the sources of those facts (you and I) have any relevance to HUS readers, their lives, or their problems (despite the fact that you and I have seen those problems before or something similar to them).
HUS not only does not want to hear what we say, the way we say it is off-putting and unwelcome as well.
deti
Well if you're only interested in what Vox wants you should say that, instead of telling us what men want.
Wrong again dear, I'm only interested in what men want. Not whingy little gamma boys like yourself.
Maybe you have that side too. Or maybe you really need to show us that big cock of yours.
You seem unusually preoccupied by the size of someone's cock to be bothering to post on a site about Game and women, but whatever floats your boat I guess. But frankly, since the first very obvious point that sailed right over your pretty little head, I've kind of lost interest in you. Sorry.
Bunny, thats ok, feel free to stop trolling this thread.
Deti - "They react because it's coming from a middle aged married schlub with problems in a current marriage or a past marriage. They react because neither those facts nor the sources of those facts (you and I) have any relevance to HUS readers, their lives, or their problems (despite the fact that you and I have seen those problems before or something similar to them)."
Well taking the mission statement there at face value, the idea of the blog is to promote and help people maintain marriage. You would think that such a site would value the opinion of guys that have failed in that capacity to some extent. And for that matter, I think it is completely relevant to the target audience there, IF indeed their goal is to get and stay married.
I fully accept that my deliver stinks. But if what you say is true, it has as much to do with women not wanting to hear the truth at all, which means the entire endeavor is a farce.
Ted:
"I fully accept that my deliver stinks. But if what you say is true, it has as much to do with women not wanting to hear the truth at all, which means the entire endeavor is a farce."
My delivery sucks too. It's not so much that they don't want to hear "the truth", it's that they don't want to hear truth from us. They need to have a mom/Aunt Susan deliver it; not a dad/Uncle Ted.
They don't want to hear Crazy Uncle deti with his PTSD or whatever else talk about everything on his mind and all his experiences and his off-beat ideas (no matter how fact-based they might be or how consistent they are with human nature) after he's been let out of his attic apartment to be with the family.
Susan doesn't mind me sitting down at the table and passing the mashed potatoes. What she does mind is the, uh, lack of FILTERING.
I'm coming around to Vox's way of thinking, which is that all these girls and HUS's readership can handle is a purple pill.
Crazy Uncle deti
Sure, it's a doubled edged sword though. Women are loyal to success. It's one reason that successful men are driven to maintain it ruthlessly. They know instinctively that their women are not loyal to them in particular, they are loyal to their success. Woe to the high flying man who falters and falls, his sweet and submissive hound, I mean wife, will turn on him with the same rabid ferocity and contempt she displayed for his former inferiors.
So women are cats. This is news? The female interest in male success is merely an additional bonus, it's neither a primary or secondary factor in most male ambition.
If you want loyalty, buy a dog. Women can be loyal, but it's not one of their primary attributes or main selling points.
Spacebunny you're reminding me of King A. All (clumsy) dominance game low substance.
No, you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with dominance and everything to do with female disdain for men without it.
If you want to boil Game down to one single piece of actionable advice, it is this. Don't fucking whine. Ever. For any reason. Or as Athol put it, don't tell her about your owies. No complaints, no crying.
Look, SB married me. Her dogs are a Rottweiler and a Ridgeback. Do the math.
Look, SB married me. Her dogs are a Rottweiler and a Ridgeback. Do the math.
I used to know a girl with a rottweiler and a canary dog, she used to go on Jamaican vacations to get her dose of dominance.
One last short little post here:
Both SB and VD have challenged something I or others have written, called a behavior beta, or some such.
But those of us who are secure and confident, and not just narcissistic, acknowledge there is some truth to their perception or blow it off, and don't turn overnight into a whiny woman.
We come here to learn. We WELCOME the sometimes pointed or even harsh, direct feedback. The feedback only becomes insulting in tone when you display butt-hurtedness like a little 3 year old boy or teenage girl.
I just can't get how someone fails so spectacularly to see their own gamma behavior, and trace the resulting reaction back to their own actions!
VD,
"Don't fucking whine"
good advice.
"Look, SB married me. Her dogs are a Rottweiler and a Ridgeback. Do the math."
I can see the math, plus I never saw a bunny carrying such a giant carrot.
"Don't fucking whine. Ever. For any reason. Or as Athol put it, don't tell her about your owies. No complaints, no crying. "
Yes be a good slave and don`t complain.
"Yes be a good slave and don`t complain."
The contrary. Be a powerful man and dont put yourself in a situation where you have to whine. If something bothers you fix it. If you're enduring hard shit, find solace and demand attention and care. Whining is not how you get it. Whining is for when you're a powerless kid and need the sympathy of the strangers and your mummy.
Well taking the mission statement there at face value, the idea of the blog is to promote and help people maintain marriage. You would think that such a site would value the opinion of guys that have failed in that capacity to some extent. And for that matter, I think it is completely relevant to the target audience there, IF indeed their goal is to get and stay married.
Ha, this would have been my thought as well. OK, you got a guy to "commit" to exclusive monogamy. Now what? How do you actually build and sustain a successful long-term relationship? This is where older guys can offer useful perspective. Just using the recent drama as an example, probably one good way is to not start a LTR with a colossal lie.
But in any case, I've concluded that discussing there is largely a futile exercise.
Yes be a good slave and don`t complain.
That's exactly what that means...
It seems like more bitter gammas are showing up to angrily snark...
Deti,
"Olive, Yohami is fucking brilliant."
Yeah I figured that out awhile ago.
Anyway, guys, here's the deal. It's not that we don't want to hear what you have to say. It's not even totally an issue of tone, though that's part of it. No, it's because Susan has decided she will not tolerate certain sphere views. Whether or not you agree with that decision, it is in her right as owner of the blog, and after you've debated it 25 times, she's not going to change her mind on the 26th. The argument is tedious. That's why the female commenters sign out when the conversation starts going in that direction.
Anyway, guys, here's the deal. It's not that we don't want to hear what you have to say. It's not even totally an issue of tone, though that's part of it. No, it's because Susan has decided she will not tolerate certain sphere views.
That's only partially true, Olive. You're absolutely correct about the lack of interest in the same old same old, but I have also seen several female commenters openly declare that they were going to take their ball and after their statements were questioned. And these situations did not concern the intolerable views either.
Yes be a good slave and don`t complain.
Please. Conan doesn't cry. And he when enslaved, he didn't complain, he rebelled and slew his slave master. Whine and cry if you want, gamma, but the girls will hate you for it.
I used to know a girl with a rottweiler and a canary dog, she used to go on Jamaican vacations to get her dose of dominance.
Now that's a solid passive-aggressive attempt to get a shot in. Congratulations. The only question it raises is if you are a woman or merely a particularly bitchy gamma.
"The contrary. Be a powerful man and dont put yourself in a situation where you have to whine. If something bothers you fix it. If you're enduring hard shit, find solace and demand attention and care. Whining is not how you get it. Whining is for when you're a powerless kid and need the sympathy of the strangers and your mummy."
That exactly is the slavery. To condition yourself to shoulder all burdens so she can let go. The tougher the man the better the slave. I`m not saying I don`t like it because I do. I`m saying that is how women indirectly control men to build the alphas THEY want and condition men to be the men THEY want. Men ultimately like becoming that strong man but still it is how women condition men to shoulder all that which can restrict the flow of their emotions by needing any sort of hardness. His reward is contentment her reward is deep and free flowing emotion. He takes the role of parent so SHE can play. The parent exists for the child not the other way around as do men exist for women not the other way around. I`m not saying it is anything to bitch about. It eventually leads men to where they need to go based on the nature they are born with but it still is what it is.
The parent exists for the child not the other way around as do men exist for women not the other way around.
As do the DOM exist for facilitating the SUBs freedom to experience maximum feeling without the constrains of responsibility.
And the cock gets all hard and though and pushy but it's ultimately the pussy the one in control, wrapping around the cock and setting the proper direction for the thrust.
But what exactly you're complaining about?
The pussy is also a slave to the cock.
VD,
"but I have also seen several female commenters openly declare that they were going to take their ball and [go home?] after their statements were questioned. And these situations did not concern the intolerable views either."
I will not deny I've seen it happen. There's a group of female commenters who have been around since before Dalrockgate, or whatever you want to call it, and the vast majority of them are genuinely interested in real, honest discussions without being overly sensitive. Unless my memory is totally failing me, over half of the current female regulars are from this group.
I've noticed instances when something you've said has elicited the "I can't handle this, leaving now!" reaction from certain ladies. Take it as a compliment: the intimidation factor in some of your posts is off the charts. Not sure if other women do this, but occasionally when I'm perusing the comments of a blog I come across a particular post that makes me think "oh shit, I wouldn't want to argue with him, he would absolutely crush me." That pretty much sums it up.
"But what exactly you're complaining about?
The pussy is also a slave to the cock."
Not in the same way no. Ultimate power always rests with the pussy over the long term. Over the long term men will accommodate women more and more and more until men are molded to what really satisfies women. As VD you can complain all you want but women won`t like it and eventually that unfavorable response and the better response to behaving more alpha leads men to go in that direction. Guided by women, not themselves ultimately. Its kind of like the dog training its owner.
I´m not so much complaining as pointing out that at the deepest level men are controlled by women indirectly no matter how powerful men feel that they are. It can`t be any other way but that is the way it is and almost no one understands it.
the woman is passive, the man is active, but the woman is the playground where the actions are made and take form
the clay submits to the artisan, but ultimately the nature of the clay determines what can be done of it
the woman is passive the man is active. the man takes direction, but ultimately the woman is the one choosing her master
but the man is choosing too, choosing for a woman who will take his lead, and the artisan is choosing for the clay that will adopt the desired shape, and the surfer is choosing the wave
for this to be about slavery you would have to change the economics and make women the stuff in demand, and make men slave's to pussy without any choice whatsoever
but women without men are nothing. and they know it. and they act the part. all the rest is a bluff.
Over the long term men will accommodate women more and more and more until men are molded to what really satisfies women.
Someone missed the memo. No, women in general will mold men who allow themselves to be molded into something they absolutely detest, and then they will cast those men off, but meanwhile using the present political system to extract every possible resource from those men.
This is because most women really cannot see long-term consequences of their impulsive demands, and are unconscious or in active denial of their own natures. Which is what this Game thing is all about.
Now that's a solid passive-aggressive attempt to get a shot in. Congratulations. The only question it raises is if you are a woman or merely a particularly bitchy gamma.
Its just a fact. It makes one wonder though, what kind of math are we supposed to do about a woman with large agressive dogs? Adding up her commenting behaviour and the fact the it takes quite a dominant personality to master large agressive dogs, and dividing by the square root of b minus a, I would say there seems to be something aggressive and masculine about it all.
As for bitchiness and passive aggression, you created a whole spergy heirarchy of loserdom by which to label people you don't like on the internet. That of the bitch about that.
There's something of the bitch about that.*
Its just a fact. It makes one wonder though, what kind of math are we supposed to do about a woman with large agressive dogs? Adding up her commenting behaviour and the fact the it takes quite a dominant personality to master large agressive dogs, and dividing by the square root of b minus a, I would say there seems to be something aggressive and masculine about it all.
Calling someone out on their bullshit is "aggressive and masculine"?
So...when a mother finds one of her children lying, or being petulant, if she points out that behaviour, she's being "aggressive and masculine"?
Lol man, do mothers call their children pathetic hypocrites, what point are you trying to make? Anyway, spacebunny has a pattern of aggressive personal attacks on commenters that usually end with her flailing about in the face of counterattacks. I'm just a casual observer.
Definitely bitchy gamma. Notice how he's still whinging. And by the way dear, I would suggest you look up the word "fact" in a dictionary, you repeatedly use it incorrectly.
Lol man, do mothers call their children pathetic hypocrites, what point are you trying to make?
That it's not inherently aggressive or inherently masculine for women to do so. "Scolding" is probably the correct term for it.
Anyway, spacebunny has a pattern of aggressive personal attacks on commenters that usually end with her flailing about in the face of counterattacks.
Personal attacks? Bitch, please. The only reason the gammas perceive it as a personal attack is because they live their little lives entirely in self-constructed cocoons of their own special uniqueness. They are so narcissistic that anytime anyone disagrees with them, they take it personally.
I'm just a casual observer.
Of course you are.
"I'm just a casual observer."
Or just a Modern Guy?
Personal attacks? Bitch, please. The only reason the gammas perceive it as a personal attack is because they live their little lives entirely in self-constructed cocoons of their own special uniqueness. They are so narcissistic that anytime anyone disagrees with them, they take it personally.
Right, you go around calling people pathetic and they take it as disagreement with their views.
Definitely bitchy gamma. Notice how he's still whinging. And by the way dear, I would suggest you look up the word "fact" in a dictionary, you repeatedly use it incorrectly.
I'm not "whinging", I'm just making some observations. I get the impression that you're a nasty piece of work, and I'm just expressing it. Don't take it personally.
By the way since you're supposed to be Christians let me point out that wrath is one of the deadly sins. I'm no expert, but I wonder if "hypergamy" would be an acceptable excuse when questioned about your tendency to "despise gammas with the fury of a thousand suns" at the pearly gates. Not judging though, don't take it personally. Just food for thought.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.