Maria told the German newspaper Bild: "We got to know each other last year on a flight and exchanged numbers, then stayed in contact. We met in hotels, but it was difficult because of our jobs."And some men wonder why women are instinctively creeped out and disturbed by grand gestures. It's a much finer line between "buying her a new Audi" and "crashing an airplane" than most people would like to believe.
Speaking of Lubitz's emotional make-up she described him as someone who was"nice and open minded" in public, but who needed constant love and reassurance in private.
"He was a good man who could be very sweet. He brought me flowers," but she added that he suffered from the pressure of his job, stating: "We spoke a lot about work and then he became another person. He became agitated about the circumstances in which he had to work, too little money, anxiety about his contract and too much pressure."
Maria said they eventually split up when she felt unable to deal with his growing problems and his increasingly volatile temper any more.
"During conversations he'd suddenly throw a tantrum and scream at me. I was afraid. He even once locked me in the bathroom for a long time."
German investigators refused to confirm whether the sick note, or the hospital treatment, related to depression, though Lubitz is reported to have taken time out from his pilot training after suffering mental illness before he finally qualified.
As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered.
As much as the feminists find it hard to believe, women are in far more physical danger from the Gammas who supplicate to them and are eager to grant their every wish than they are from the Alphas who objectify and use them.
Heartiste explains the difference:
When I saw a photo of the guy, my gut told me he was a lovelorn beta male candidate who may have flew (heh) into a psychotic episode triggered by a relationship breakup. I decided against my gut, in favor of the more “PC” speculation. I should’ve stuck with my gut. News arrives that Lubitz was seeing a therapist to get over his fiancée dumping him.
(NB: This isn’t omega male rage, a la Elliot Rodger. Omega males are sexless castaways. Beta males can get girlfriends, but are awful at maintaining relationship hand, so they frequently get dumped, what seems to them, out of the blue.)
165 comments:
Lubitz looks gay. All his problems I bet stemmed from his repressed faggotry.
He also made another mistake we've discussed here recently: dumping his feeeelings about his job out on his woman. We were better off when men stopped at the corner bar on the way home and decompressed from work with a couple drinks with the guys, instead of looking to their women for therapy.
Without those kind of male-only spaces where men can roughly bolster each other, the modern Gamma's life has two parts: his job and his relationship. There's no one to give him perspective, remind him that there's more to life. If his job sucks, his relationship becomes everything, and the prospect of losing it overwhelming.
"it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, "
Sweet. I called it from the beginning. Check it out:
Laguna Beach Fogey said...
These are the actions of a man unlucky in love, a young man recently broken-up with his girlfriend.
March 26, 2015 at 6:47 AM
It was written on his face. He had that "dump me" look.
'As much as the feminists find it hard to believe, women are in far more physical danger from the Gammas who supplicate to them and are eager to grant their every wish than they are from the Alphas who objectify and use them.'
Two sides of the same coin. Both use women...just in different ways. One uses her feels, the other uses her body. Neither is a healthy strategy for men in the long run.
But when the feels are taken away a man would be more prone to taking desperate measures.
Whether they use women or not is beside the point especially considering women want to be used. Just not by Gammas.
If there's a type I can never feel sorry for, it's Gamma. They believe they're owed for their time and efforts, even after being told their actions are unwanted. It's best to cut them off immediately instead of stringing them along because it turns into something terrible and they end up feeling used and can potentially lash out. I've seen this personally and it's awkward for everyone involved.
No doubt gammas can be deadly, but that isn't what creeps women out about them. If it were, sites like FindAnInmate.com wouldn't be so popular.
'Whether they use women or not is beside the point especially considering women want to be used.'
Women want to be loved...not used. Used reduces them to a utility.
On a totally unrelated note that I wanted to share with everyone here, I had occasion yesterday to watch a short, well-dressed young man inflict some serious mate-guarding maneuvers on his girlfriend.
It started with the hostile look he gave me as his gf (7/10) and I exited the elevator. He immediately put his arm around her as they walked off together, and then escalated it into an awkward series of touches and hugs, trying to pull her closer to him. She showed little reaction, acted stiff, and seemed much more interested in her smart phone than in him. It was odd.
I've read about this sort of thing in the literature, and I've probably noticed it before without quite realising what it was. It was pretty amusing to watch this behavior in the wild with an understanding of what was going on.
Women want to be loved
Women want to be desired.
'Women want to be desired.'
That's true.
Women want to be desired...women need to be loved.
"Women want to be loved...not used. Used reduces them to a utility."
Both, actually. A woman wants to be used by the right kind of man, and especially by one who also loves her.
"Women want to be desired."
Different issue. One is existential, the other psychological. Yes, there's overlap.
'Both, actually. A woman wants to be used by the right kind of man, and especially by one who also loves her.'
Yes it's both...but if you take the love part out, then it becomes a terrible mantra.
"Yes it's both...but if you take the love part out, then it becomes a terrible mantra."
That's the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. They serve different purposes.
Don't men want to feel loved and desired, like women? I know I do, but I would never expect such a thing from the self-centered sex. The concept of reciprocity is anathema to women. Are they good for anything other than menial labor and giving birth? Even the latter is doubtful due to abortion rates.
Doesn't sex get old when it is always one sided? Why is it always men who groom women in bed and never the other way around? Is it that the male body just ugly, or are only men capable of appreciating the bodies of their partners?
'Don't men want to feel loved and desired, like women?'
Men want to be respected by their wife. This meaning she appreciates the sacrifices he makes and that's why she respects his authority in the marriage.
It's not so good when a man is used and a woman thinks he is just a mule for her whims and she can be rebellious. Which is why I don't get why men think they can use women and it's a travesty when women use them.
Women should just stay away from any man who wants to use or control them, be it emotionally or physically. Gammas and Alphas, as described, both seem like sexist creeps best avoided.
Earl Thomas
"It's not so good when a man is used and a woman thinks he is just a mule for her whims and she can be rebellious. Which is why I don't get why men think they can use women and it's a travesty when women use them."
I think you will find the double standards are laid on thick here. "Since women and men are different, it is okay to treat them different" is the justification; but it seems to always be manifested as an excuse for men treating women in a way thery never would accept being treated themselves, men pushing women into a role they would not accept for themselves.
Vanir, do explain how the stunning success of fsog supports your hypothesis.
"Men want to be respected by their wife."
Respect is derived from fear. If women were capable of loving and empathizing with their men, there would be no need for "respect"
Men are mules because they want to be. Men want women to use them because that's the only way they can give "meaning" to their lives. From childhood, men are conditioned to be addicted to female validation by their mothers.
@vanir85
"Women should just stay away from any man who wants to use or control them, be it emotionally or physically."
Not gonna happen until white knights and society as a whole stops protecting them from the consequences of their own mistakes.
"excuse for men treating women in a way thery never would accept being treated themselves, men pushing women into a role they would not accept for themselves. "
Could be because men and women are not the same except for different plumbing.
phantom26d
"Not gonna happen until white knights and society as a whole stops protecting them from the consequences of their own mistakes."
- Consequences of their own mistakes? Yeah, that usually translates to "stop protecting women from what men do to them..."
"Could be because men and women are not the same except for different plumbing."
- Even if, so what? Differences does not excuse discrimination, treating someone as inferior, using them as a tool for ones own purposes. What more, differences is pretty much always used to excuse exactly things like this - it never goes the other way.
Don't men want to feel loved and desired, like women?
Yes, but what makes a man feel loved is very different. As Earl said, being respected is part of it. Loyalty is another big part. Seeing to his physical needs and wishes, from meals to sex, is another.
As for being desired....I don't think men feel a need for that the way women do. We want our women to desire us because we want to have lots of good sex with them, and it's logical that that will be more likely to happen if they desire us. But I don't think a man feels an emotional need to be desired in itself. In fact, if he can't have sex with a woman -- say she's his wife's sister, for instance -- then while her desire might be flattering, it's also likely to be frustrating (if he desires her back) or annoying (if he doesn't).
In a 50SOG world, how is it possible for anyone to claim with a straight face that women do not want to be used? They just want to be used by the right kind of man in the right relationship. This is reminding me of all the strenuous efforts to deny many women have rape fantasies.
"Which is why I don't get why men think they can use women"
Because the sexes are different. Also, see 50SOG.
@vanir85
"- Consequences of their own mistakes? Yeah, that usually translates to "stop protecting women from what men do to them..."
Would you rather women be considered responsible adults who don't need the protection of pesky men and can make responsible choices and defend themselves from danger, or
Impulsive, immature teenagers whose brains stop developing at young adulthood and entirely dependant on male provisioning and protection?
Fear not, men will adopt an appropriate response regardless of your choice.
"Differences does not excuse discrimination, treating someone as inferior,"
Some people are "inferior" in various ways. Recognizing them as such does not precede "discrimination".
@cailcorishev
"As for being desired....I don't think men feel a need for that the way women do. We want our women to desire us because we want to have lots of good sex with them, and it's logical that that will be more likely to happen if they desire us."
I can't speak for other men. I have zero interest in laying with someone who doesn't have a similar desire for me.
"but it seems to always be manifested as an excuse for men treating women in a way thery never would accept being treated themselves"
Women far more often treat men in a way they would never accept being treated. Look at the dating world: the man initiates, risks rejection, makes all the plans, takes all the risks, is constantly qualifying himself, etc.
Women expect to be approached by an endless stream of suitors who will invest many resources in pursuing her, while she picks and chooses among them.
Moving even a part if the male responsibility in mating to females makes them deeply frustrated and unhappy.
Dewave said...
"In a 50SOG world, how is it possible for anyone to claim with a straight face that women do not want to be used?"
Because fiction is not reality? Enjoying a book about something does not mean you want to live it out in the real world. And it definetively does not mean you want your life to be dictated by the sentiments of that book.
The sexes may have their differences, but so what? That neither excuses using someone, or their subjugation.
"I can't speak for other men. I have zero interest in laying with someone who doesn't have a similar desire for me."
Many men are willing to pay large sums of money to sleep with women who are completely uninterested in them. Of course the prostitutes who do best are the ones that feign an interest.
(NB: This isn’t omega male rage, a la Elliot Rodger. Omega males are sexless castaways. Beta males can get girlfriends, but are awful at maintaining relationship hand, so they frequently get dumped, what seems to them, out of the blue.)
I know Roissy covers both Deltas and Gammas under "beta", and I imagine that both groups get dumped by girlfriends, but in addition, it also looks like Gammas are more likely than Deltas to get divorced, or suffer a broken engagement. Women feel more comfortable with Deltas and are therefore less likely to go through the hassle of a divorce. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say that married Gammas have a ~75% divorce rate, but for Deltas it's more like ~25%.
And on the rare occasions when Omegas do get some, it's only in their 30s or older, to a female castaway their own age. In many if not most cases, it's their only sexual contact ever, and it's only temporary; they're eventually cut off within the marriage as well.
phantom26d
I guess women should prepare for a civil gender war then, if men's "appropriate response" is that women should be subjugated and because they refuse to be held responsible for what men do to them.
Dewave
Different courtship? Not even comparable to men expecting women to act like their servants in the relationship. What you earlier described as what makes a man feel loved - his woman acting like his physical servant - is straight out dehumanizing - something these men would never accept themselves.
"Enjoying a book about something does not mean you want to live it out in the real world"
We are talking about erotic fan fiction here. People only buy and read that if they like the scenario contained within. Every woman who bought and enjoyed 50SOG did so because it expressed one of her sexual fantasies - in this case, to be used. Obviously it is ludicrous to claim something is not a sexual fantasy because you don't expect to live it out in the real world -- that is the definition of a sexual fantasy.
"That neither excuses using someone"
There is no need to make an excuse for using someone for their intended purpose. My wife uses me to fetch things off high shelves, move heavy objects, kill bugs, emotional support, etc. There is no problem with using a hammer to drive nails or a saw to cut wood.
Only deeply unpleasant women are constantly paranoid in their relationships that their partner might be using them. Remember all the frigid whiners complaining about the woman who was going to make 300 sandwiches for her boyfriend?
@vanir85
"because they refuse to be held responsible for what men do to them. "
Yeah I know, anything bad happens to women is always men's fault. Women have no agenda of their own, so they can't be blamed for pining after alpha bad boys and "finding themselves" by sleeping around until their 30s with no one willing to marry their infertile, aging selves.
Civil gender war? Don't be ridiculous. Women are too busy fighting each other over petty jealousy. And feminists are only ever interested in first-world problems such as fat-shaming, gender pay gap (false) or white male privilege rather than their sisters in far away countries being sold as sex-slaves.
"Different courtship? Not even comparable"
Of course it is comparable. Your original contention was that it was evil and dehumanizing for one sex to treat another in a way they wouldn't want to be treated.
Women expect men to treat them in courtship in a way they would refuse to treat men: ergo, by your OWN definition, women are dehumanizing men and treating them as tools in dating.
Or how about the Titanic? The women expected the men to go down with the ship, sacrifice themselves, that the women might be saved. They would not have treated the men the same way. More dehumanizing of males and treating them as tools!
Your fundamental issue is that your claim, that one sex treating the other differently than it would like to be treated is problematic, is just completely and totally false. The sexes are different. They want to be treated in different ways.
Now you are trying to wriggle away, shift the goalposts, and change your definitions. Not going to fly.
"I guess women should prepare for a civil gender war then, if men's "appropriate response" is that women should be subjugate"
You are wholly ignorant of history. No woman in the entire history of the world has been as free, powerful, and privileged as the women in America today.
Women have been brutally repressed and subjugated in just about every other culture in just about the entirety of human history.
Name ONE 'gender civil war' where such treatment drove the women to take up arms.
Amazing prediction. My initial sense was, OK, we'll see as the evidence comes in, but it's probably a conversion to Islam or ... JPN, just plain nuts.
The idea that someone would mass murder 150 other people because of some personal problem is unfathomable to me, i.e., "I'm upset about my girlfriend's rejection, so I'm gonna kill all my passengers who have nothing to do with this" ... yeah, not computing. I don't want to understand it.
I mean, he has the money for an extra Audi -- he can't go on a drinking and whoring binge, and wake up in a flophouse in Hamburg, broke, with a headache, and ready for a fresh start? Or, as Snoopy once did, eat until he forgot ole "what's her name?"
phantom26d
And what would the "consequences" be of women enjoying their own sexuality? Beause, you know, the ACTUAL consequences are something women already have to deal with - the simple causality of risking STDs and pregnancy (and the ways to deal with that). Consequences just happen. Sounds like what you want to do, is for men to be able to punish women for enjoying their freedom.
And the civil gender war thing? Obviousle referring to what is needed IF men start trying to subjugate women again, for whatever justifications they cook up (i know men certainly have an advantage, but better to go out fighting than to be forced back in time).
'From childhood, men are conditioned to be addicted to female validation by their mothers.'
Men are conditioned to receive love from their mothers. That's the only female on this planet capable of doing that with a man.
"Obviousle referring to what is needed IF men start trying to subjugate women again, for whatever justifications they cook up (i know men certainly have an advantage, but better to go out fighting than to be forced back in time)."
Are you predicting a gender civil war in the areas that are experiencing radicalizing Islam? These areas treated their women much better even 50 years ago.
Dewave
"Women have been brutally repressed and subjugated in just about every other culture in just about the entirety of human history."
Wow, we actually agree on something. Thing is; I'm glad feminism ENDED the culture in the west that did this to women. Trouble is; many here seems to disagree with this.
And my words about civil war; just my thoughts on what needs to happen if men try to force women back to those days. And yes, maybe women can't win such a fight - but they can die trying, and that is preferable to being subjugated like women were in the past.
'Respect is derived from fear. If women were capable of loving and empathizing with their men, there would be no need for "respect"
Respect is the fear of losing the authority figure because of the possible consequences. Women are capable of respecting a man.
What we got now is the lie that women are their own authority figure (which oddly enough doesn't erase the fear) and by that they erode the true authority.
@vanir85
Punish women? Far from it. Ideally I would prefer women be able to sleep with whomever they damn well please. It might be difficult to maintain civilization in such a setup, then again the current one is doomed to fail anyway.. sooner the better.
As much as I don't want women to be "punished" for enjoying themselves, I also don't want society to compensate them for their bad choices and protect them from the results of their impulsive behaviour. I want no more unjustified wealth transfer from men to women. No more false rape charges without due process, no more alimony, no child support, no free abortions, no birth control pills on taxpayer money, no nothing.
You really think women would "die trying" to protect the insane privileges they have now that they never had to work for? Everything women have has been given to them by men. Their rights, privileges, applications / inventions that make their lives easier, the society, legal system, cities and infrastracture that they enjoy. The only reason women have so much power over men now, through rape-culture, demonizing male sexuality, no fault divorce, alimony / child support et cetera is because the men at the top of the hierarchy use them as enforcers of the current social order which keep other men beaten down, docile and controlled.
If Powers That Be wanted women to be subjugated again, the pendulum would swing back and crush women before you could scream "Patriarchy!"
Thing is; I'm glad feminism ENDED the culture in the west that did this to women. Trouble is; many here seems to disagree with this.
Heh. Just... heh. Feminasties just don't get that they just ENDED the one culture on Earth that actually did believe in women's dignity.
And what's with the feminasty trolls lately? First High Arka (assuming she isn't a sock puppet of insanitybytes, which I'm not convinced of yet), and now this vanir85 broad.
Earl Thomas
"What we got now is the lie that women are their own authority figure"
And that is absolutely a preferable situation. People should be the dominant person in their own life, be they man or woman. If you go through life with someone else calling the shots, you might as well be an automaton - not a human being. No one should have more authority over a woman, than the woman herself.
If you go through life with someone else calling the shots, you might as well be an automaton...
Even Bob Dylan knows you've Gotta Serve Somebody
Corvinus
"Feminasties just don't get that they just ENDED the one culture on Earth that actually did believe in women's dignity."
Earlier (or previous, if you prefer) western culture was just as bad and limiting for women as other misogynist cultures. And that's what feminism ended; without feminism, women would still be chattel passed from father to husband, housebound, dependent, oppressed, subjugated, without a say in larger society - destined to live as voiceless shadows in a man's world.
Western culture was nothing special with regards to women's rights. It was feminism that elevated it above the rest.
Guys, High Arka is GG/Insanity Bytes, etc. Vanir is version 2.0, equally impervious to logic and reality. I wouldn't waste a lot of time on her.
And that is absolutely a preferable situation. People should be the dominant person in their own life, be they man or woman. If you go through life with someone else calling the shots, you might as well be an automaton - not a human being. No one should have more authority over a woman, than the woman herself.
You do realize submission is the reciprocal property to authority? When a woman willingly does that with her husband they both receive true power. There is nothing robotic about it. In fact I think women have more power through their influence than trying to be authority figures.
"Because fiction is not reality? Enjoying a book about something does not mean you want to live it out in the real world. And it definetively does not mean you want your life to be dictated by the sentiments of that book. "
Looks like we caught ourselves a live one here.
Im curious, why would you puncuate a statement with a question mark? Are you such a feminized estrogen fueled cunt that you lost all ability to converse with men as a man would?
Women absolutely want to be subjugated and dominated, especially sexually and thats the undeniable truth. Or do you imagine men dont really want hot, thin 18 yr old girls?
Even high testosterone manjaws long to be at the heel of the man deemed worthy.
I have zero interest in laying with someone who doesn't have a similar desire for me.
Right, but the point for a man is still the sex. The point for a woman is the desire -- she wants to be desired, even by men she has no opportunity for sex with. A woman wants to walk into a room and have all the men desire her, period. (Interestingly, she also wants all the women to desire the man she's with.) She'll go home from that room happy because of being desired. A man might get a charge out of being desired by all the women in the room, but if he doesn't have sex with any of them, he'll soon wonder what's the point.
That's why men's porn is all sex, while women's porn includes many scenes where the woman is desired by awesome men who can't have her until the end of the story for one reason or another.
Feminists are more misogynistic than anything that preceded them
From whence proceeds authority, and by what means is it retained? Until you can answer that question, you can't justify the worldview where each person ought to have full and exclusive authority over his person and activities.
Not that you'll ever be able to justify that position because it's self-contradicting, but that's beside the point.
A woman wants to walk into a room and have all the men desire her, period.
@cailcorishev
I absolutely do not buy that women want to be desired, except maybe on a superficial level. If they did, slobbering Gammas would have no trouble in the sexual marketplace, and aloof Sigmas would get nowhere.
Noah B
"Feminists are more misogynistic than anything that preceded them"
Yes, The feminists that fought for legal and social equality actually hate women more than the chauvinist scum who wanted women to remain subjugated to men... The ones who wanted women to be free and have a choice, actually hate them more than those who wanted women to remain underheel.
What? Because some feminists (like me) are frustrated with women who choose to remain in their cage, that means feminists are more hateful of women in general - than scum who want all women forced into cages, period?
Now you're just getting silly.
If women really have been subjugated through human history, what does that tell you? Maybe they really are inferior in terms of intelligence and judgement. Maybe they don't mind being subjugated, or even PREFER it even.
Women have submitted to powerful men thru all history. Submissiveness is a conveinent front for parasitsm.
Would it be a stretch to claim that women are parasites?
That aside, women could never have entertained the illusion of being "strong and independent" without an already existing civilization built and maintained by men to protect them from savages and wild animals.
@cailcorishev
"A woman wants to walk into a room and have all the men desire her, period. (Interestingly, she also wants all the women to desire the man she's with"
That's just evil.
@Earl Thomas
"You do realize submission is the reciprocal property to authority? When a woman willingly does that with her husband they both receive true power. "
I don't think she can even understand what you're trying to convey.
The feminists that fought for legal and social equality actually hate women more than the chauvinist scum who wanted women to remain subjugated to men... The ones who wanted women to be free and have a choice, actually hate them more than those who wanted women to remain underheel.
Glad you understand and agree. This is why women like you don't accept the choices that other women make to take on traditional roles. The majority of women actively seek out what you denigratingly call a "cage."
S1AL
"From whence proceeds authority, and by what means is it retained? Until you can answer that question, you can't justify the worldview where each person ought to have full and exclusive authority over his person and activities."
Actually, I can (you really expect me to base myself on the same philosophies you do)? A person owns themselves and their own life, no one else does. A woman owns herself, and she should determine herself what she does with that property. Giving away this control willingly..? Just pathetic. Claiming you have the right to have this control over someone else? Monstrous.
Ownership of something implies the right to transfer ownership. Your worldview is inherently contradictory. Women own themselves... unless they do something you happen not to like.
Noa B
"The majority of women actively seek out what you denigratingly call a "cage.""
The majority of women got out of their cage as soon as they could. The majority of women would fight, tooth and nail, to not be forced back into them.
The true misogynists are those who hate women who embrace the freedom given them by feminism, those who hate feminism for giving women this freedom.
"Actually, I can (you really expect me to base myself on the same philosophies you do)? A person owns themselves and their own life, no one else does. A woman owns herself, and she should determine herself what she does with that property. Giving away this control willingly..? Just pathetic. Claiming you have the right to have this control over someone else? Monstrous."
You make that claim with no basis, which is the point I was making. You say that "a woman owns herself," yet you offer no justification for this assertion. If history is an earnest guide, then one may rightly say that - through slavery or otherwise - the vast majority of people have direct experience that this claim is fundamentally incorrect. If you cannot prevent me from taking "ownership" of your person, then you cannot claim that you incontrovertibly own yourself.
So I ask again: from whence proceeds authority?
A significant number of women have always been laborers of various sorts. That option has always been open. Feminism consists of those rejects for whom a good marriage was never a realistic option attacking the women who have achieved the security and happiness the feminists themselves could only dream about.
Feminism is only needed by ugly, bitchy women. Do you think Cindy Crawford really gives a shit about feminism?
Q.E.D.
Conscientia
"Feminism is only needed by ugly, bitchy women."
No, feminism was needed by any woman who wanted freedom, and cherished by any woman who wants to keep it.
Corvinus, I should have said she wants to be desired by all the attractive men in the room -- all the men who aren't invisible to her, in other words. That doesn't include the Gammas. The point is, she wants to be desired by far more men than she would ever have sex with. A standard fantasy for girls is walking into a ballroom in a great dress and having all the men turn and look at her -- and all the other women there envy her.
A man typically only cares whether a woman desires him to the extent it affects sex with her.
"No, feminism was needed by any woman who wanted freedom, and cherished by any woman who wants to keep it."
Right. The ugly bitchy ones. You two seem to be talking past each other.
S1AL
"If you cannot prevent me from taking "ownership" of your person, then you cannot claim that you incontrovertibly own yourself."
Might makes right to owning a person, more than being that person does? Yeah. I'm thinking we're pretty far from any common ground. For my money; being able to take someone a slave, does not give the right to - not in any way.
Noah, I know. She's obsessed with me.
"Might makes right to owning a person, more than being that person does? Yeah. I'm thinking we're pretty far from any common ground. For my money; being able to take someone a slave, does not give the right to - not in any way."
You're dodging the question. I have made no claims whatsoever regarding the morality of the situation, simply the reality of it. So, again, from whence proceeds authority?
Noah B
Attractive women don't need or want freedom? They are happy being subjugated and without a voice? Then good thing there seems to be more smart and capable women than attractive ones. Many of them are also quite pretty in my eyes, Like Emma Watson. But hey, if you say she's ugly... well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i guess.
"A woman wants to walk into a room and have all the men desire her, period. (Interestingly, she also wants all the women to desire the man she's with"
That's just evil.
What's evil about it? If you mean the second part, that's how she confirms that she chose a valuable man and that a valuable man desires her.
There's a scene early in the movie "European Vacation" (yes, I'm into the classics) where each Griswold has a dream on the flight to Europe. Ellen's dream is of she and her husband Clark entering a party at Buckingham Palace and hobnobbing like old friends with the royal family, and Princess Diana having an unrequited crush on Clark. That's the dream that puts a smile on her face -- an attractive, desirable woman (this was before she was a laughingstock) wanting her husband.
To a man, that's stupid: why would you want the competition? But a woman eats up that validation of her husband's attractiveness. Even though it comes with the risk that the other woman might win him away, she prefers that to having a husband no other woman would look twice at, because that would mean she picked a lemon.
S1AL
"from whence proceeds authority"
Over oneself? From being an adult human being.
Over others? From them giving it, WILLINGLY and from a position of actual choice, not because society dictates it or pushes them into a position where they have no choice.
If you want some "magic" source, like a god, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I dated a severe gamma for a time. When we would fight, which was frequently because it made him the focus of attention, he would often threaten to commit suicide. I wanted to break up with him long before I did because it felt like I had no safe place to leave him, if that makes sense. It appeared to me that outside of being pathetic manipulation the suicide threats were also a weird form of proclaiming romantic devotion. It still disgusts me to recall it though. I feel sorry for the ex fiance.
"Over oneself? From being an adult human being.
Over others? From them giving it, WILLINGLY and from a position of actual choice, not because society dictates it or pushes them into a position where they have no choice. "
So your assertion is that being an adult gives one full, autonomous, and complete authority over oneself, regardless of circumstance?
Equally, your assertion is that, should I choose not to recognize the authority of existing government or social institutions, those institutions automatically have no authority over my person?
And I do hope the irony of someone going by the name "Vanir" bitching about "a god" isn't lost on you.
But no, I'm not interested in a metaphysical debate on the moral nature of authority. I *am* interested in pointing out the flaws in your view of functional authority.
Corvinus, I should have said she wants to be desired by all the attractive men in the room -- all the men who aren't invisible to her, in other words. That doesn't include the Gammas.
Part of a man being attractive is in his keeping his cards close to his chest about whether or not he actually does desire her. Which is also why when Gammas do get "lucky", it's almost always with women that they don't actually desire, or at least not very much.
So no, women don't want to be desired, although they may think they do. Instead, they doll themselves up to the nines and then select the man who seems least affected by their beauty. (Note I said "affected", not "impressed". Gammas can easily be "not impressed", but they're still certainly "affected".)
"What's evil about it? If you mean the second part, that's how she confirms that she chose a valuable man and that a valuable man desires her."
The fact that she's not content with only her man's attraction, in addition to enjoying to tempt both men and women around them.
"A valuable man", huh. As if she herself possesses or deserves any value.
I know this should not be, but sometimes women make me sick.
"Many of them are also quite pretty in my eyes, Like Emma Watson. But hey, if you say she's ugly... well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i guess."
Not saying I wouldn't hit that, but poor thing, her head has been filled with so much garbage. She's just saying what she thinks she needs to say to advance her career.
S1AL
The typical (and natural) restriction being that your freedom and authority over yourself, ends where someone elses freedom and authority over themselves begin. Your right to autonomity is not greater than anyone elses, after all. And from there springs laws that line up property, outlines how to share roads without driving each other to death, etc. There are some laws I would agree a person could break without it being morally wrong (f.ex it should be your own damn business if you smoke weed or not) - but society tends to need som shared laws to function.
So, moving on;
As for recognizing laws. There is a difference between reality and morality (like you stated before). For practical reasons, a democracy tends to be a good way to agree on shared laws - with every person's authority being measured the same in the ballot (I realize that there are problems with how the electory system works in practice, but that's another discussion).
"So no, women don't want to be desired, although they may think they do. Instead, they doll themselves up to the nines and then select the man who seems least affected by their beauty."
I agree with cail here. Women want to be desired by men they find desirable. The same applies to men, though being desired is less important to them than to women. Women tend to dislike a man who is overtly fawning over their beauty -- they prefer men who indirectly communicate their attraction. All of which can be done quickly and simply with body language.
So... society is a collective surrender of authority for... mutual benefit? And, as a result, society becomes the higher power to which its citizenry... submit?
Huh, imagine that.
S1AL
More like society is (should be) an arrangement where every individual in the collective retains as much personal authority as possible, and has an equal say in matters that affect the society as a whole (which is what democracy attempts to accomplish).
F.ex. In a family, the optimal is for both the man and the woman to retain the say over their own life, while having equal authority over matters of the family itself. No one is the "head" in a fair arrangement.
All right y'all, don't feed the troll. Her worthless verbiage is cluttering up the thread.
Women tend to dislike a man who is overtly fawning over their beauty -- they prefer men who indirectly communicate their attraction. All of which can be done quickly and simply with body language.
@Noah B
That is more accurate. I'll add that it doesn't even need to be conscious, except when actually making a move.
But still, "women want to be desired" is a very misleading statement. Even "women want to be desired by an attractive man", while better, is still misleading. Rather, I'd phrase it as, "women want to mine for the $10,000/oz desire of an alpha who won't give it up." And even when he does, it's only in dribs and drabs.
Life isn't fair, Vanir. That's the fundamental problem with your entire worldview. You are operating in a hypothetical world which has minimal bearing on reality.
That's why you don't understand the very concept of submission, irrationally comparing it to slavery or a cage. You don't grasp that benefits of the surrender of authority for personal and mutual benefit, despite the fact that you live in a civilization that is only possible because of that principle.
Furthermore, you don't grasp the incredibly obvious fact that functional authority is a derivation of power. And that, of course, is why you so inanely believe that "feminism" resulted in modern society, and not the reverse. You've put the tail before the horse, then chopped off the horse's head and declared it to be a "natural and obvious" state.
Republicanism led to democracy, and democracy will eventually lead to tyranny. This fact was recognized almost 250 years ago by Benjamin Franklin, shortly before the ratification of the Constitution. All of history indicates this path. You mistakenly believe that history is moving in a fixed direction... this is simply not true. Society will eventually revert, most likely as soon as the ab-scarcity era vanishes.
@Corvinus/Noah - I'd say it's more an issue of the nature of the attraction - men prefer to be attractive for their accomplishments and capabilities, rather than for looks. That's why you see a lot of guys who are very successful in their professions/whatever who simply Do. Not. Get. It. when it comes to dressing fashionably. The very concept of looks and apparel conveying status is foreign to them.
Yes, I'm lecturing myself right now.
S1AL
"Life isn't fair" - obviously, if it was, feminism would have been introduced to our specie, and been a guiding principle, from somewhere before we even climbed up in the trees. But as humans one struggles to make things more fair, only monsters revel in the unfairness and take advantage of it to their benefit.
"Authority is a derivation of power"... so, your basis IS that might makes right - you just go a roundabout way to make it sound more justified.
But yes, surrendering to someone because they are stronger - IS putting oneself in slavery. Better to gang up and destroy the mighty monster and thereafter live free as equals. Giving up your freedom - subjugating yourself - is not worth it no matter what your master "provides"... those who give up freedom for safety shall have neither, and all that...
And maybe your type will manage to drag the world back into the tyrannical cesspool it just climbed out of. I don't know, but I promise you will have to fight people like me every step of the way. The only way women go into the subjugated hell you want for them, is at gunpoint - if even then.
You? Fight? What are you going to do? Beat us with your purse? Threaten not to have sex with us?
Giving up your freedom - subjugating yourself - is not worth it no matter what your master "provides"... those who give up freedom for safety shall have neither, and all that...
Do you realized that you're paraphrasing a man and this was just his tricky way to keep women oppressed? Janis Joplin, on the other hand, said that freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Freedom is slavery.
I think that, for women, men desiring them is like having clean fresh water to drink - taken for granted when it's abundant, but really, REALLY missed when it's scarce or absent.
I mean, she's basically using "The Golden Compass" as a talking-point outline. What do you expect?
She's parroting William Z. Foster and she doesn't even know it. I posted an analysis of Foster up thread by Alan Stang.
Noah B
Well, I agree with Benjamin Franklin on this one. Although, he may not have even considered women to be human enough for this to apply to them, you can still consider the sentiment appropriated by at least *this* feminist.
"Freedom is Slavery" - yeah. still not buying that one. Freedom is freedom and it is in every way preferable to being subjugated, submissive, dependent, enslaved or "protected".
The best theory I ever heard for feminism was that it was invented by men who wanted to make it easier to get laid. Thus emerged the myth of the slut as an empowered woman.
Puppet doesn't know it's a puppet
Puppet gonna puppet.
'Ello poppet!
Noah B
The freedom to live out ones sexuality is certainly more empowering than neurotically having to keep ones leg together like some madonna on a pedestal.
However, the important thing with having or not having sex, is to make ones choices to please oneself - and not men. Don't act a virginal angel to appease men who hate female sexual agency, and don't be a mastubatory tool for horny dudes to pleasure themselves with. A woman should do whatever she does for her own reasons.
A woman should do whatever she does for her own reasons.
Reason obviously has little to do with motivating feminists.
Hence the total lack of difficulty in accepting beliefs that are immediately observed to be contradictory by any thinking person: feminists consider having sex with random strangers to be empowering, but providing a husband with sex means being used as a masturbatory tool for horny dudes.
Noah B
"feminists consider having sex with random strangers to be empowering, but providing a husband with sex means being used as a masturbatory tool for horny dudes."
Neither what I wrote, nor what I intended to convey. It's empowering to engage in sex when you, yourself, want to (preferably without chauvinist double-standard bs attached). Be it with strangers or a partner.
"It's empowering to engage in sex when you, yourself, want to (preferably without chauvinist double-standard bs attached). Be it with strangers or a partner."
Then there's nothing wrong with wanting to sexually please someone else.
This is what a feminist looks like -- a woman who lets random alphas piss all over her because it's so empowering and stuff.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/23/the_orgy_prude_how_i_finally_admitted_i_dont_like_meaningless_porn_star_sex/
This is what a feminist looks like -- a woman who lets random alphas piss all over her because it's so empowering and stuff.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/23/the_orgy_prude_how_i_finally_admitted_i_dont_like_meaningless_porn_star_sex/
The change in diagnosis doesn't feel right. I think Omega is still more likely.
I conceive of Gammas as being dopamine chasers, who use the anterior cingulate cortices to down-regulate the amygdala by fueling delusions of grandeur, like proper narcissists. Omegas are characterized by despair and internalization of a pattern of failure- their strategy is to conserve energy rather than spending it to decrease cortisol and increase dopamine. Put a piece of chocolate in front of an Omega and he'll eat it, but if it's across the room he might not spend the energy to get up and walk to it. Put a piece of chocolate in front of a Gamma, and he'll eat it for the dopamine and then engage in self-deceit about his weight to down-regulate the stress.
Retrenched
Being able to act out ones desires (large or small), if one wishes to do so, certainly is empowering. But the key phrase her is - "if one wishes to do so" - to act in a way one really doesn't want to, is not a good thing.
Um...my overall point was that sex doesn't necessarily disqualify an Omega diagnosis, because it might have been perceived as a risk-free proposition. Sex suggests higher SSMV in general, but the essence didn't feel right in this case.
Gammas are better characterized as having little to no perceptual acuity. If we cut open their brains, I'd expect a very high ratio of white matter to gray matter, and similarly a high ratio of verbal intelligence to visuospatial intelligence.
Ergo, women who want to be good wives and please their husbands are empowered. As are the men who reject feminists. Don't you just love all this empowerment?
On women and feeling desired, loved, etc: I'm going to guess that women want to be sexually objectified and this requires a degradation of their higher faculties. Kinda like how neurotic people can't get it up without alcohol to break the tension. Probably the more prideful women are, the more they need to be humiliated to get properly aroused.
No doubt gammas can be deadly, but that isn't what creeps women out about them. If it were, sites like FindAnInmate.com wouldn't be so popular.
@Trust
Heh, you'll love this post: Hamster of the Month
Noah B
And women who want to screw around, and who want to have sex only when they themselves are horny - and do so - are also empowered. So are men who want women as equals, not as submissive wifebots, and desire feminists. Empowerement lies in being able to do what one wants and get what one desires (preferably without getting any crap for it - be it traditional moralism or chauvinist double standards).
The Greeks understood the problem thousands of years ago. Hubris, a kind of grandiose insanity. In the pilot, case, going out in what he considered a blaze of glory. That cannot be understood while trapped in the Greek alphabet soup mix of the Manosphere.
Equality in this world is a myth. We are only equal before God.
The change in diagnosis doesn't feel right. I think Omega is still more likely.
I'm going with Gamma. An Omega wouldn't have been even able to start a relationship with any woman, until maybe he's north of 35, and then only with a woman his own age. He was at least able to get to the engagement stage.
I conceive of Gammas as being dopamine chasers, who use the anterior cingulate cortices to down-regulate the amygdala by fueling delusions of grandeur, like proper narcissists. Omegas are characterized by despair and internalization of a pattern of failure- their strategy is to conserve energy rather than spending it to decrease cortisol and increase dopamine. Put a piece of chocolate in front of an Omega and he'll eat it, but if it's across the room he might not spend the energy to get up and walk to it. Put a piece of chocolate in front of a Gamma, and he'll eat it for the dopamine and then engage in self-deceit about his weight to down-regulate the stress.
That all may be true, but it's likely that Mr. Lubitz was also like this until he snapped. Plus, he was on psychotropic drugs.
That said, it's my impression that there is some overlap between how Gammas and Omegas behave. For example, I think of those Omegas who "hate women with a borderline homicidal fury" as actually very low Gammas in a lot of ways. Whereas, there are also men who have a Gamma level of sexual success with women, but resemble your conventional Omega in being lazily asocial and indifferent. (There are likewise those asocial men with Delta, Beta, or Alpha levels of success with women; the last category is what Vox calls Sigma.)
So while overall, Gammas do better in the sexual marketplace than Omegas due to their social natures, this isn't always true.
vanir, since according to what passes for your logic we're all empowered regardless of what we do, you have no basis for complaining about the actions of anyone else. Including wives choosing to be sexbots or husbands demanding their wives be sexbots.
And note that Omegas are indifferent toward society, rather than hating it. Lubitz strikes me as being very resentful and wound-up, based on the description of his behavior toward his ex-fiancée. And that, together with his Gamma level of success with women, makes him a Gamma.
Re: Suicide.
Gamma suicides are going to be more feminine in character. Impulsive, and likely to back out or fail because they don't really want to die. And they're going to make a bunch of noise in the meantime because it's all about the attention.
Omega suicides are lengthily premeditated and often very analytical in character.
Gamma suicides are going to be more feminine in character. Impulsive, and likely to back out or fail because they don't really want to die. And they're going to make a bunch of noise in the meantime because it's all about the attention.
Omega suicides are lengthily premeditated and often very analytical in character.
Sure, Lubitz' suicide was premeditated, but it wasn't very analytical, and it had the Gamma quality of attention-whoring. Whereas you often don't know an Omega has committed suicide until someone finds his body rotting a month after the deed was done.
>And note that Omegas are indifferent toward society, rather than hating it.
Quite the contrary. I, personally, hate society with a passion you probably can't fathom or understand. I'm only an unusually forthcoming Omega: lots of other Omegas lurk here without posting. This hate transfers to civilization by association because the result of civilization is even more "society". See the Unabomber Manifesto for illustration.
But I understand these are feelings, and have nothing to do with moral behavior, and certainly don't reflect well on my lord and savior. Many Omegas don't have this restraint on their behavior, so they are often ticking time bombs.
Noah B
"Demanding" is the problem. Trying to push someone to be something they likely don't want to be. If a wife wants to be a doormat, then no problem - but a man doesn't have the right to force her to be one, he must find one who desires to be one.
>Whereas you often don't know an Omega has committed suicide until someone finds his body rotting a month after the deed was done.
Often the case, but not always. I've always figured that if I'm going to kill myself, I ought to at least do everyone else the courtesy of suicide bombing some important bastion of evil.
Since I'm participating pretty heavily in the thread anyway, I'd like to point out that Trust made a great point here:
>No doubt gammas can be deadly, but that isn't what creeps women out about them. If it were, sites like FindAnInmate.com wouldn't be so popular.
One slight modification, a creepy Gamma murderer probably gives a better first impression than a law-abiding, creepy Gamma. The murder didn't take away the creepy, but it independently gives the Gamma a small boost in sexiness.
Demanding is not the same thing as forcing. Demanding is saying that if you do X, I will do Y. Y may or may not involve force.
For instance a man can say, "You will agree to have sex with me when I want or I will not marry you." That is a demand but is not force. Are you claiming that all demands are problematic, or only those that you don't like?
Quite the contrary. I, personally, hate society with a passion you probably can't fathom or understand. I'm only an unusually forthcoming Omega: lots of other Omegas lurk here without posting. This hate transfers to civilization by association because the result of civilization is even more "society". See the Unabomber Manifesto for illustration.
I see. When I was an Omega, I was more of an indifferent babyface rather than one who despised and hated the broader world and society, so I guess I was projecting. I just think of the broader society as being really stupid because of political correctness, SJWs, Cultural Marxism, etc., but I don't think I've ever crossed the line into hating and despising it, except on rare occasions.
Now I'm trying to determine the difference between Gammas and bitter Omegas. At this point, I'd guess that Gammas at least make a twisted pretense of loving society and try to be in it (hence their tendency to be SJWs), unless they receive a reverse from a woman and snap, whereas bitter Omegas don't even bother. In other words, Gammas only hate the alphas whereas bitter Omegas hate the society itself.
>That said, it's my impression that there is some overlap between how Gammas and Omegas behave. For example, I think of those Omegas who "hate women with a borderline homicidal fury" as actually very low Gammas in a lot of ways.
Good point. For illustration purposes, it's important to remember that most Omegas are former Gammas where a few things broke along the way due to stress events.
Part of the problem here is that the story about Lubitz is still changing. Early this morning the story was that he told his girlfriend he was going to do something so terrible his name would never be forgotten, and she ran as quickly as she could. I would have said that was Omega. Today the story is that Lubitz told her this after she had already left him. That sounds more like Gamma.
Oh my God! BWAH HA HA HA!! Vanir you should go to the Saturday Night Live! HAHAHAHA. Can't stop laughing about all your bullshit! HAHA! Women should prepare for a civil war? HAHAHAHA Women would fight, tooth and nail!!! Really laughing my fucking ass off!!! And she says.... HA HAHAHAHA...HAHHAA... And she says....HAHAHA. I CAN'T I CAN'T. She says that "women can die trying". HAHAHAHA. Please, Vanir, what drugs are you smoking????
Ok. I will try. I will try. Breathing deeply now. It's hard not to laughing my ass off before such a crap. Women fighting? Women dying because of an ideal? When has this happened in all the history of mankind? Women dying? They hear a bullet from one hundred yards and they run to escape like crazy. They see a cockroach and ask the men to kill it. Men can tremble...tremble... before such an impressive army!!!! HAHAHAHA.
Women resisting anything until dying for an ideal is BS. They have always sided with the victor and spread their legs. When Nazi Germany conquered France, French women were very happy of receiving them with the legs open. When Nazis were defeated, French women were happy of receiving the Allies with the legs open. Women in every country conquered by Islam had submitted and spread their legs.
The only thing that women can do is whine, bitch and complain. Western men.made the mistake of paying attention to all this bitching and gave women what they wanted so they can keep on bitching. How many women have carried a weapon to fight for feminism? How many women have gone to war or died to fight for feminism? Or for any other ideology? It's only bitching and complaining. This is the only "fight" women can do. And then spreading their legs for the victor once the battle is over.
All this feminism and women's studies classes have melt your brain, Vanir, because you believe such nonsense. If there is a proof that women have inferior thinking skills is you, Vanir. Your world of fantasies is very far away from reality.
Let me help, I speak fem. Preparing for civil war = not having sex with us
For a few days
"""
I see. When I was an Omega, I was more of an indifferent babyface rather than one who despised and hated the broader world and society, so I guess I was projecting. I just think of the broader society as being really stupid because of political correctness, SJWs, Cultural Marxism, etc., but I don't think I've ever crossed the line into hating and despising it, except on rare occasions.
Now I'm trying to determine the difference between Gammas and bitter Omegas.
"""
The difference between hatred and contempt/pity is which side of the power dynamic you're on. Inferior people and races *hate* superior people and races, whereas superiors feel detached contempt for inferiors. Imagine the dynamic between a prisoner and a prison guard. If the prisoner takes a dislike to the guard, this dislike will be expressed as hatred. If the guard takes a dislike to the prisoner, this dislike will be expressed as contempt.
For further illustration, I don't hate women with homicidal fury because I'm not really interested in having sex with them. They don't have that power over me. But I hate society because it has a lot of power over me.
xxxx
Well. One advantage of embracing Islamism is that we'd see men like you be enslaved and put in the place you want women to be in. Now if it was just possible without women also becoming slaves...
Beyond that, not gonna bother answer you. You represent everything about the misogynist earlier/previous western civilization that was rotten and needed to be ended.
Well. One advantage of embracing Islamism is that we'd see men like you be enslaved and put in the place you want women to be in. Now if it was just possible without women also becoming slaves...
Translation from fem: We won't actually fight you, but someone else might!
Noah B
No, that was more a digression. The only people in the world who actually deserve subjugation, slavery, are misogynist men who'd like to see women under their feet. They truly deserve the fate they would wish for others.
As for fighting. Depends on how such a conflict developed, obviously.
@Noah B
Well. One advantage of embracing Islamism is that we'd see men like you be enslaved and put in the place you want women to be in. Now if it was just possible without women also becoming slaves...
Translation from fem: We won't actually fight you, but someone else might!
And then we will spread our legs for our Islamic overlords and will be accepting a subordinate role and loving it. The lady doth protest too much. It's happening in Europe, where I am from.
Beyond that, not gonna bother answer you.
So relieved!!! So relieved!!! I thought you were going to find me and fight me with this army of women you are creating, these women that are going to die trying (trying to run for their life where real danger happens). I Thank you for sparing my life. I was trembling of fear.
Seriously, you need to quit drugs, Vanir.
What's also funny is that vanir is basically describing an (more) incoherent version of communism.
It's like the Bible says: There is nothing new under the sun.
"No, that was more a digression. The only people in the world who actually deserve subjugation, slavery, are misogynist men who'd like to see women under their feet. They truly deserve the fate they would wish for others."
Since you have rejected the premise that men and women are equally empowered and it is acceptable for us all to pursue our own desires, and instead you prefer a contest of strength and will, there is no reason whatsoever for me to care about your subjugation when you inevitably lose.
Noah B
"Since you have rejected the premise that men and women are equally empowered"
I have? I certainly WANT a society where men and women are equally empowered.
And the use of force is only acceptible in self-defence - such as if men try to force women to submit, like they did before. That was the basis for my whole "civil war" statement.
I certainly do not want to see people subjugated - but I make an exeption for those who wish to subjugate others. If you prefer to see women under men's heel - you deserve the same fate yourself, as you wished on them.
"The majority of women got out of their cage as soon as they could. The majority of women would fight, tooth and nail, to not be forced back into them"
Where is this majority of women fighting against radical resurging Islam that is taking away all the rights and freedoms they enjoyed just do cades ago?
"And the use of force is only acceptible in self-defence - such as if men try to force women to submit, like they did before. "
What if a woman wants a man to force her to submit?
You would support a woman's right to choose that, right?
You admitted more than you intended to. To you, women can want anything and it's OK. However, it's not OK if men want women to have traditional roles or otherwise do anything you consider misogynist. That is a high crime that cannot be forgiven.
I know logic is not your strong suit, but it therefore follows that you have rejected the premise of equality.
Deawave
"What if a woman wants a man to force her to submit?"
Then it wouldn't really be force. I suppose. Problem with this, it's usually an excuse made in the same way as "her mouth says no - but her eyes says yes". A man's excuse for doing what he wants despite a woman's words.
"Then it wouldn't really be force."
Neither is misogyny.
Noah B
"if men want women to have traditional roles or otherwise do anything you consider misogynist. That is a high crime that cannot be forgiven."
If someone wants to see others under their heel, that is what they deserve for themselves. That's all i claimed, no more and no less. That is not the same as wanting men punished for wanting a woman who willingly submits (how disgusting that may ever be).
"If someone wants to see others under their heel, that is what they deserve for themselves. That's all i claimed, no more and no less."
Wrong. That is not what you claimed. You only applied this to "misogynist men." Quoting you: The only people in the world who actually deserve subjugation, slavery, are misogynist men who'd like to see women under their feet.
Noah B
Yes. "misogynist men who'd like to see women under their feet." = misogynist men who would like to see women subjugated (regardless what the women themselves want).
You're reducing the meaning of an entire line, to just two of its words.
Hey look everyone, Vanir have steered both threads back to the same subject For a comined hundreds of comments. Monomania is alive and well.
Conscientia
Pretty sure you can figure out what I think of the pathetic little flyboy. Already said my piece on that, really; women should just stay away from any man who wants to use or control them - emotionally or physically. It's just different types of sexist creeps; be they what you types call "Alpha" or "Gamma". No point giving them even a chance for a breakup to rage over.
'vanir85: "It's just different types of sexist creeps; be they what you types call "Alpha" or "Gamma". No point giving them even a chance for a breakup to rage over. '
She seems to be working diligently toward providing additional verification data points for both "Feminists" and "Game" while she's here. Definitely a useful instructional tool, this one.
Mr.A Is Mr.A
Are you maybe rooting for the freaks who crash plains if their special snowflake feelings get hurt? "If these horrid modern women wouldn't be so mean and just suck men off on command, like good little slaves, *sob*"
"vanir85 said...
Are you maybe rooting for the freaks who crash plains if their special snowflake feelings get hurt? "If these horrid modern women wouldn't be so mean and just suck men off on command, like good little slaves, *sob*"
Vanir85, you are *SO* not tall enough for this ride.
@aeolipera
Good point. For illustration purposes, it's important to remember that most Omegas are former Gammas where a few things broke along the way due to stress events.
I wasn't aware of that. I was always Omega, or at least a very, very low Delta with Omega traits, until a few years ago. The Gamma obsequiousness and delusion with women was never a factor, although at one point I did have a bad case of oneitis and tried what was essentially Gamma behavior just to see if it worked. It didn't, of course. I'm currently Delta, but if my self-confidence and people skills continue to improve as they have, I may become a Sigma within the next couple of years or so. (Not a Beta or Alpha... I'm far too asocial, feeling perfectly happy alone with no close friends.)
The difference between hatred and contempt/pity is which side of the power dynamic you're on. Inferior people and races *hate* superior people and races, whereas superiors feel detached contempt for inferiors. Imagine the dynamic between a prisoner and a prison guard. If the prisoner takes a dislike to the guard, this dislike will be expressed as hatred. If the guard takes a dislike to the prisoner, this dislike will be expressed as contempt.
Yeah, I haven't thought of it that way, but that's pretty much also why if blacks, feminists, etc. hate white males, they assume that "racism" or "sexism" is "hate" because they're projecting... again. When I was Omega, the feeling I had toward society was mainly fear... a sort of fear of the unknown. Now it is an often amused disdain, often mixed with a mild exasperation at society's boneheadedness.
vanir85, if I may ask, have you ever described yourself as an Objectivist? I find that a lot of left wing feminists went through that phase in their late teens, and I find it puzzling, as Ayn Rand is basically the opposite of a leftist. You could call her a feminist if you wanted, since that word describes everything that feminists like.
As an anarcho-capitalist, I share your belief that everyone should be self-actuated, self-sufficient, neither dominating nor being dominated by force. Unfortunately, most people are not self sufficient. Given freedom and opportunity, they will degenerate into obese trailer trash within two generations.
There are a few solutions, of course: 1) Eugenics to produce a superior race of Aryan ubermensch; 2) advanced information technology and social institutions that regulate society without the use of government, with efficient, brutal justice and callous neglect of the poor; 2) "Soft" controls such as religion, slut-shaming, etc. to keep everyone in line.
Personally, I prefer a combination of all of the above to mitigate the excesses of each. Now, to return from this digression to something relevant to the thread, here's another question: If 80% of men have to be ordered around all day to make sure they work instead of smoking weed and raping women, wouldn't you expect 80% of women to need to be bossed around? Over the course of about 400 comments over hte last couple of days, I still haven't seen you give a compelling argument for why being treated like garbage by a bad boss is better than being treated like garbage by a bad husband. Our hypothetical trailer trash woman can leave her man just as easily as she can leave her job at Burger King, but she has no better prospects for either employment or romance, due to her low value in both markets; practically, she is trapped.
maniacprovost
Honestly, yes, I had a period when I would have considered myself an objectivist. However, I only very briefly considered Rand as someone who could be thought of as a feminist. Someone practically at her knees in submission and awe to the all-superior male, could hardly be a feminist (in my opinion).
I am curious as to why anyone describing themselves as anarcho-anything would feel it neccessary to control the behavior of others (going so far as to deliberately trying to shame them, or wanting to enforce eugenics), beyond making sure they don't directly cause harm or impede anyone elses independence; if someone are trailer-trash, as you describe it, what is the problem? Let trailer trash be trailer trash - it's their right to live like that.
As for your question; working should be men's, or anyone's, own decicion. Unless someone steals the property of others to survive, society should not enforce anything. And I think people should be allowed to smoke weed, if they wish to do so. Rapists should of course be punished, but I strongly disagree with men having to be forced to work to not go on a rape spree - an odd leap of logic, there.
With that in mind. No, 80% of women do not need to be bossed around, and as far as I'm concerned; neither do 80% of men. Work is optional - most will choose to work because earnings do not come out of thin air, but still. And weed-smoking SHOULD be optional. Only rape, of the things you mentioned, should be subject to law-enforcement. And that is true of both genders (neither should be allowed to commit rape, or other actions that directly cause harm).
>Yeah, I haven't thought of it that way, but that's pretty much also why if blacks, feminists, etc. hate white males, they assume that "racism" or "sexism" is "hate" because they're projecting... again.
Projection is the same mechanism as theory of mind (sometimes called "empathy" or emotional intelligence), except when it happens to be incorrect it's called projection. You see a lot of both with white matter-dominant, verbal IQ-reliant folks.
'From childhood, men are conditioned to be addicted to female validation by their mothers.'
Men are conditioned to receive love from their mothers. That's the only female on this planet capable of doing that with a man.-
My mom was more psychopathic and not as nurturing, fuck it. I read on a Rationale male post, on the comment section that if you didn't have a nurturing mother or a strong relationship due to her issues this can help you with girls. Hehe, a curse can turn out to be a blessing.
I root for America, I'm Mexican-American and Mexico didn't do anything for me so I'm American. But society is full of shit and I'm expected to follow through with their fucking expectations and settle for a slut at 30 and work at a job I don't like. And frankly, many cool people are not cool to me, I like people but I dislike some of them. Am I an omega for this??
I am curious as to why anyone describing themselves as anarcho-anything would feel it neccessary to control the behavior of others (going so far as to deliberately trying to shame them, or wanting to enforce eugenics), beyond making sure they don't directly cause harm or impede anyone elses independence... Unless someone steals the property of others to survive, society should not enforce anything.
"Enforce" implies the use of force. Maybe you can call peer pressure a force, but you know, I don't want to "enforce" eugenics... I simply don't want to be forced to pay for the support of the dregs of society. Stop feeding them, and in a world of limited resources, the strong will outbreed the weak.
Similarly, the majority of the misogynists here don't want to "force" any woman to do anything, as they've told you multiple times. However you insist on conflating economic necessity - a woman choosing to serve a man to survive - with some kind of slavery.
most will choose to work because earnings do not come out of thin air
Exactly. Are men slaves because they choose to be overworked until they die as callused old men? If not, then women are not slaves because they choose to serve their families.
@Eric Jimenez
Guess it would depend upon your history with girls. At this point, I wouldn't say your relationship with your mother is quite as important as they make it out to be. For your sociosexual rank, in fact, I'd say your father is more important. From observing the various men in my extended family, the eldest sons always seem to get the father's sociosexual rank. Interestingly, though, if the father is of a low rank, the second sons go the other way and turn out fairly alpha (more or less at Beta in Vox's system). I don't know how ironclad this rule is, as I'd have to hear reports from others, but it's quite striking.
My dad was and is a straight up gamma. He's very sweet and kind in nature. But despite the sociosexual rank, he sometimes thinks he's higher and tries to bring me down, lol, but now thta I understand why, it bothers me less. Being born with higher testosterone was a gift, but my dads rank like you said hindered me. I knew there something wrong, lol, instinctively. I was more aggressive and with the manosphere I found that in a different family and environment, I could've been a higher Delta or maybe Beta. Sucks.
With girls I'm getting better, when I was a teen I used to be called a player by the female staff in Juvy. I had some natural ability, but lack of social circle hindered it.
if I may ask, have you ever described yourself as an Objectivist? I find that a lot of left wing feminists went through that phase in their late teens
All the objectivists I've ever met have been gamma males (high IQ science/engineering/computer nerds).
Dexter
I agree with maniacprovost, I think it might be common as a phase - though still a phase - for many feminist. The first time I even heard a direct statement rejecting that women should sacrifice themselves and their wishes for men and family (and society at large) was in a quote from Rand;
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Also including the notion that all people exist to live, grow, challenge the world and be challenged - not to live a stifled and subdued life of feminine submissiveness;
“What greater wealth is there than to own your life and to spend it on growing? Every living thing must grow. It can't stand still. It must grow or perish.”
So yes; owning ones one life. Period. It not being something men or society had a claim on for their own needs or the greater good or whatever excuse. Rejection of submission, Rejection of someone's very right to *expect* another human being to submit. - Rand was the one who formally introduced me to such thoughts (though I later learned that, in practice, she seemed to make an exception for women... figures).
The basic idea of self-ownership is actually still a major part of my feminist outlook; that every person has full authority over themselves, and that the only legitimate authority over others is that which is willingly given away - yet oddly enough people here tend to call these ideas "communist" when I express them - though, in reality, they derive from what some may consider communism's direct opposite.
Hey, maybe it was repressed Lambda rage after all?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germanwings-alps-disaster-co-pilot-andreas-lubitz-trawled-suicide-gay-websites-before-crash-1494044
Hey, maybe it was repressed Lambda rage after all?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germanwings-alps-disaster-co-pilot-andreas-lubitz-trawled-suicide-gay-websites-before-crash-1494044
@Retrenched
Heh. Heartiste kept joking on Twitter that he looked like a fag.
Although, I've noticed that Gamma seems to be Lambda-lite in many ways. In other words, perhaps one form of extreme Gamma is not a bitter Omega, but rather a Lambda.
Would you be will to debate me on this or create a post. First of all Gammas are not necessarily more prone to violence but that's beyond the point. What this site and others such as Roissy and Rooshv promote as Alphas are actually Omegas. Hollywood has promoted the idea that Omegas are actually Alphas and marketed it to the masses. Turn the world upside down and depict omega losers as winners and role models.
It is a disgrace that those who claim to be dissidents or "Red Pill" have promoted Omegas as at the top of the totem poll. First of all unlike Roissy and Roosh you address the issue of the Gamma. However I disagree that they should be placed at the bottom of the totem poll.
First of all I would describe myself as a Gamma based on your description. Gamma's are intelligent, creative, and just all around awesome!
First of all I would describe myself as a Gamma based on your description.
Yup. I agree.
Roissy banned me for making this point. Why do you still have him on your blog roll if he censors the truth?
From a remark I made over at Return of Kings:
It’s reported that Lubitz was banging a stewardess on the side, but given his personality and behavior leading up to the crash, that can hardly be described as “alpha.”
Ironically, it's not uncommon for women to initially be attracted to crazy beta males (more often than saner ones) precisely because the women mistake their erratic craziness for alpha [ed: or sigma] behavior. Then, when the clinginess and insecurity comes out, they want out.
Of course, this ability to initially and unintentionally simulate an alpha makes crazy betas far more dangerous than either saner betas or alphas.
Thank you for this effort
مصراوى توب
رياضة كرة القدم
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.