giancoli Posted September 22, 2014 Posted September 22, 2014 barbarossa made a video commenting on that video. It's the typical male fantasy of a woman, but sadly it is only a fantasy and a very dangerous one. Real women despise weakness in men, they don't see us as equals, as humans, only disposable utilities, a means to an end. There might be some odd exceptions, but it's hard to spot them, cause they hide their intentions, maybe even to them selves. 3
fractional slacker Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 All puffed up with vanity We see what we want to see To the beautiful and the wise The mirror always lies 1
Alice Amell Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Made me cry. It reminds me of a call the other day when Stef was saying the caller doesn't know how to express his feelings because he never learned how (or rather learned not to) because he was punished when he tried. He was silenced. And now someone is helping him learn... it's so amazing.
bootoo Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 barbarossa made a video commenting on that video. It's the typical male fantasy of a woman, but sadly it is only a fantasy and a very dangerous one. Real women despise weakness in men, they don't see us as equals, as humans, only disposable utilities, a means to an end. There might be some odd exceptions, but it's hard to spot them, cause they hide their intentions, maybe even to them selves. How do you know what the typical male fantasy is? How do you know what 4 billion women think? 1
TheBen Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 barbarossa made a video commenting on that video. It's the typical male fantasy of a woman, but sadly it is only a fantasy and a very dangerous one. Real women despise weakness in men, they don't see us as equals, as humans, only disposable utilities, a means to an end. There might be some odd exceptions, but it's hard to spot them, cause they hide their intentions, maybe even to them selves. Thank you for reminding me how I found this clip. I follow every video Bar Bar puts out as much of what he has to say is gold. I remember seeing his vid on male mother need and agreeing with all of the points that he made concerning this clip. However, I think that there are other interpretations that are also valid (more on that below). I went back and found the Bar Bar vid in question and here it is if you are interested: Made me cry. It reminds me of a call the other day when Stef was saying the caller doesn't know how to express his feelings because he never learned how (or rather learned not to) because he was punished when he tried. He was silenced. And now someone is helping him learn... it's so amazing. Yes, it makes me cry a bit every time I see this clip. And I think you are right in that now someone is helping him to feel again. Though this idea implies that someone else "could" have taught him how to embrace his feelings before (i. e. his parents and specifically his mother) I think that this is exactly what Bar Bar was talking about when he says men are drawn to a romantic partner that takes the place of the mother figure. 2
MMX2010 Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 barbarossa made a video commenting on that video. It's the typical male fantasy of a woman, but sadly it is only a fantasy and a very dangerous one. Real women despise weakness in men, they don't see us as equals, as humans, only disposable utilities, a means to an end. There might be some odd exceptions, but it's hard to spot them, cause they hide their intentions, maybe even to them selves. Oh yeah. I could see where that scene was leading to, so I closed the video and imagined myself stabbing the version of myself that (still) longs for a beautiful woman to lead me into realizing my potential. "Kill the beta, kill the beta, kill the beta..." How do you know what the typical male fantasy is? How do you know what 4 billion women think? Are you familiar with any Manosphere literature, especially Rollo Tomassi at the rational male website?
bootoo Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Are you familiar with any Manosphere literature, especially Rollo Tomassi at the rational male website? Am not - just browsed the website tho My point in asking the question is, if there is such thing as a 'typical male fantasy' at best you have thens of thousands in a sample group as your source of information, but I would imagine it would be more likely tens or hundreds for such a question - so it would only be typical to that small sample group - no good reason to project that onto billions of others. Does the website provide reason to think otherwise? Thanks!
MMX2010 Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Am not - just browsed the website tho My point in asking the question is, if there is such thing as a 'typical male fantasy' at best you have thens of thousands in a sample group as your source of information, but I would imagine it would be more likely tens or hundreds for such a question - so it would only be typical to that small sample group - no good reason to project that onto billions of others. Does the website provide reason to think otherwise? Thanks! It does, if you read deeply into it and compare his conclusions to those of other Manosphere writers. Rollo uses the term "feminine imperative" very frequently, which means "the myriad of ways society tells everyone - men and women - that the major goals of a relationship are what the woman wants". And his article here, on empathy, explains why giancoli and I strongly believe that the "Angel-A, beautiful scene" is just a male fantasy. http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/ (The quote that sticks out, " Perhaps it’s due to a deeply enrgamatic hard-wiring of the importance of hypergamy into the feminine’s psychological firmware, but women cannot accept that any man, and in particular a Man worth considering as a suitable hypergamic pairing, might ever be incapacitated. The feminine subconscious refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of this. Perpetuating the species and ensuring the nurturing her offspring maybe part of her pysche’s hard-code, but ensuring the survival and provisioning of her mate is not. This isn’t to say that women can’t learn (by necessity) to assist in her mate’s wellbeing, it’s just not what evolution has programmed her for – it requires effort on her part. I propose this because women’s solipsistic nature (predicated on hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience – and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her hypergamy betted its genetic inheritance on for protection and provisioning, could be so incapacitated that she would have to provide him with protection and provisioning is so counter-valent to the feminine imperative that the feminine psyche evolved psychological defenses (“men are just big babies when it comes to pain”) against even considering the possibility of it. Thus, due to species-beneficial hypergamy, women fundamentally lack the capacity to empathize with the male experience, and male pain.") No empathy, no ability to nurture. Period.
bootoo Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 It does, if you read deeply into it and compare his conclusions to those of other Manosphere writers. Rollo uses the term "feminine imperative" very frequently, which means "the myriad of ways society tells everyone - men and women - that the major goals of a relationship are what the woman wants". And his article here, on empathy, explains why giancoli and I strongly believe that the "Angel-A, beautiful scene" is just a male fantasy. http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/ (The quote that sticks out, " Perhaps it’s due to a deeply enrgamatic hard-wiring of the importance of hypergamy into the feminine’s psychological firmware, but women cannot accept that any man, and in particular a Man worth considering as a suitable hypergamic pairing, might ever be incapacitated. The feminine subconscious refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of this. Perpetuating the species and ensuring the nurturing her offspring maybe part of her pysche’s hard-code, but ensuring the survival and provisioning of her mate is not. This isn’t to say that women can’t learn (by necessity) to assist in her mate’s wellbeing, it’s just not what evolution has programmed her for – it requires effort on her part. I propose this because women’s solipsistic nature (predicated on hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience – and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her hypergamy betted its genetic inheritance on for protection and provisioning, could be so incapacitated that she would have to provide him with protection and provisioning is so counter-valent to the feminine imperative that the feminine psyche evolved psychological defenses (“men are just big babies when it comes to pain”) against even considering the possibility of it. Thus, due to species-beneficial hypergamy, women fundamentally lack the capacity to empathize with the male experience, and male pain.") No empathy, no ability to nurture. Period. Interesting. What society is he talking about? How are women responsible for the messages of that society? How long have women had a say in the message? Lots of maybes and perhaps - does he post sources? There is no such thing as 'feminine psychological firmware'. Seems he is making evolutionary assumptions and projecting those onto 4 billion people. Every aspect of those 4 billion women will fall on a spectrum. Makes no sense to make claims about all of them based on anything to do with their physiology. All of them will be from different cultures and environments, so makes even less sense to makes claims about them based on a shared psychology.
MMX2010 Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Interesting. What society is he talking about? How are women responsible for the messages of that society? How long have women had a say in the message? Lots of maybes and perhaps - does he post sources? There is no such thing as 'feminine psychological firmware'. Seems he is making evolutionary assumptions and projecting those onto 4 billion people. Every aspect of those 4 billion women will fall on a spectrum. Makes no sense to make claims about all of them based on anything to do with their physiology. All of them will be from different cultures and environments, so makes even less sense to makes claims about them based on a shared psychology. Is this your first time discussing the effect of women's physiology on their thoughts, dreams, hopes, expectations, desires, and actions? What is your primary purpose for engaging in this conversation?
bootoo Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Is this your first time discussing the effect of women's physiology on their thoughts, dreams, hopes, expectations, desires, and actions? What is your primary purpose for engaging in this conversation? Probably a first time, especially as you put it Primary purpose is to try to nudge readers towards better reasoning. I think you are probably setting yourself up for suffering if you project a world view based on bad information. A strong bullshit meter is a great tool. Here is a good lecture about it
Psychophant Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 @22:50 The Pareto principle, not again. (20:80 or 80:20) Health conciece is sometimes an euphemism for health obsessed or body obsessed aka vain. Since nobody dies healthy, the extremities aside - obesity and healt obsession, there is lots of middle ground. E. g. your nutritional intake is balanced and you ain't exactly a couch potato. Speaking of extremities, if you ruin your health by being a couch potato your life isn't going to be long, beside that there is no causation for a prolonged life span due to so called health conciece life style. You simply cannot make a case based on extreme examples.
MMX2010 Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Probably a first time, especially as you put it Primary purpose is to try to nudge readers towards better reasoning. I think you are probably setting yourself up for suffering if you project a world view based on bad information. If this is truly the first time you're discussing the most cynical aspects of the Manosphere, then you can neither: (1) understand the research which informs those conclusions, nor (2) understand the negative emotions each man experiences when accepting those conclusions. As such, you can't forecast what a man will make of his life once he embraces these conclusions, which means you can't argue that "a man is setting himself up for suffering if he projects a worldview based on bad information". You can feel such a thing, and you can assume such a thing. But you can't effectively argue such a thing. ----------------------- Rollo, as usual, has a poignant answer for everything. http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/12/the-myth-of-the-lonely-old-man/ ("Is loneliness a disease that necessitates a cure? If men could be made to believe so, think of the potential profit to be made from, and the potential for manipulation of, men. The real test for a man is how he lives with himself, alone. Precious few men ever truly allow themselves to be alone and learn real independence and self-reliance. The vast majority of guys (see Betas), particularly in western culture, tend to transition from mother to wife with little or no intermission between. For the most part they subscribe to the feminine imperative, becoming serial monogamists going from LTR to LTR until they ‘settle’ without ever having learned and matured into how to interact as an adult. The fear of loneliness is entirely too exaggerated in modern western romanticism. The popularized fear-mythology of becoming the “lonely old man who never loved” is the new ‘old maid’ myth made popular in an era when a woman’s worth was dependent upon her marital status and (at least now) equally as false a premise.")
bootoo Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 If this is truly the first time you're discussing the most cynical aspects of the Manosphere, then you can neither: (1) understand the research which informs those conclusions, nor (2) understand the negative emotions each man experiences when accepting those conclusions. As such, you can't forecast what a man will make of his life once he embraces these conclusions, which means you can't argue that "a man is setting himself up for suffering if he projects a worldview based on bad information". You can feel such a thing, and you can assume such a thing. But you can't effectively argue such a thing. Seems like you ignored few simple arguments I did make. I've heard people say 'You cant understand' as an argument before, doesnt really sit well. Here is another example, an article talking about these exact same principals of low sample groups and projecting/stereotyping but this is on one of the most widely used personality tests the Myers-Briggs test - http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless But no problem, I wish you every success. A word of warning, Catholic priests are the most obvious example of the perversions and mental sickness caused by repressing your natural desires...I really honestly hope you and the other gentleman don't restrict yourselves from bonding with women based on information about as useful as horoscopes. 2
MMX2010 Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I think that this is exactly what Bar Bar was talking about when he says men are drawn to a romantic partner that takes the place of the mother figure. Stef recently told a female caller that it's wrong for her to seek out men based on her unprocessed childhood disappointments. So I know he feels (and I agree with him) that it's wrong for us to choose women that way. We can't place women in the leadership / empathy role just because our mothers didn't love us enough.
TheBen Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Stef recently told a female caller that it's wrong for her to seek out men based on her unprocessed childhood disappointments. So I know he feels (and I agree with him) that it's wrong for us to choose women that way. We can't place women in the leadership / empathy role just because our mothers didn't love us enough. I completely agree...
Recommended Posts