I'm a woman and I'm stuck...

[Nutrigirl26]

I would love some insight from an outsider (who may have personally dealt with this problem before too?) I am having trouble trusting myself and my feelings. For instance, when I listen to podcasts about how manipulative and money-grubbing women can be I find myself getting a little uncomfortable As if he were pointing me out and specifically telling me I'm a terrible human being. (I realize this is totally irrational, that's the problem) I find that I have had to talk myself down on a number of occasions by reminding myself that I am not like those women at all. I am in a wonderful, committed relationship with a good and virtuous man, and we have spent a long time together working to find reason and consistency in how we live our lives.

 

My problem is that I am having a hard time dissociating rational feelings from irrational "crazy girl" emotions that could be manipulative on some level. I am really trying to set myself apart from all of the other women out there who manipulate their way to where they want. Has anyone else experienced this?

[Sashajade]

 Yes, I had that feeling also when i first heard the estrogen based parasites video. I had to remind myself that even if I'am guilty of some of the things in the video, it has had alot to do with not understanding my motivation, my upbringing, media conditioning, so I can forgive myself for some of it now. The fact that you are even questioning yourself is a good sign. It means you are able to consider the effects of your actions.

[Lens]

Imagine as a child you had one of your parents hearing you doubting yourself and thinking that you were a bad person I bet they would have said to you "Oh well there must be a good reason to feel that maybe you're really bad". There are a lot of people that talk like that to their children and feel no remorse and they make their children feel bad and miserable and I am sure, like many of us, you internalized a lot of their false opinion about you and you thought that you really were a bad person. Also I deeply agree with Sashajade that it is a good thing to be able to feel the pain of it, certainly deep down in your body you know that you are a good person but it is your family poison that throttles you to feel good about you. Now you need to anger and reject that poison and refuse to believe them this will make you feel a lot of fear but it is not dangerous just intense feelings of fear. Nathaniel Branden self-esteem series can help you to believe more in yourself. 

[Kevin Beal]

My problem is that I am having a hard time dissociating rational feelings from irrational "crazy girl" emotions that could be manipulative on some level. I am really trying to set myself apart from all of the other women out there who manipulate their way to where they want. Has anyone else experienced this?

I could totally be misunderstanding and I apologize if this is totally unhelpful. But I don't think that an emotion can be manipulative.

 

Have you read Real Time Relationships?

I think there is a really big difference between these two statements:

 

1) I feel like you never listen

 

and 

 

2) I feel hurt and resentment, and I also have a belief in my head that you don't listen enough

 

"You never listen" is not an feeling, and the first statement could really be translated to mean "I feel hurt and resentment and it's because you never listen. My feelings are evidence of this fact."

 

Feeling hurt is not actually evidence, in a strict sense, that the other party doesn't listen. And because it's framed as a "feeling", it's in the land of unfalsifiability. I cannot tell you that you don't feel hurt, obviously. That would be ridiculous. I can't do that because only you know that, subjectively. But whether or not I ever listen is something that is a claim which is true or false. The effect of mixing the two up is that I'm an asshole if I challenge your feeling that that I never listen. That would be manipulative.

 

Being honest about your expectations and your experience of the relationship is not manipulative.

 

--------------------

 

I guess the way to determine if you fit whatever particular definition of manipulative woman Stef was using, you would need to identify the specific principle. For example, by implication, I put forward the principle that framing conclusions about other people (like in the way I described) as if they were feelings is manipulative.

 

Without knowing what the principle is, I would hesitate to condemn yourself. I would also stay far away from people who make accusations like that without putting forward rational principles / arguments, because all they are really doing is appealing to your insecurity. Also, there's not lesson to learn if you really are doing something bad, so it's pretty pointless. It could simply be that your desire to have integrity and be a good woman is being used against you in an effort to manipulate you, which would be projection on the part of the accuser.

 

Without the principle, I can't really say.

[DaVinci]

I could totally be misunderstanding and I apologize if this is totally unhelpful. But I don't think that an emotion can be manipulative.

 

Have you read Real Time Relationships?

 

I think there is a really big difference between these two statements:

 

1) I feel like you never listen

 

and 

 

2) I feel hurt and resentment, and I also have a belief in my head that you don't listen enough

 

"You never listen" is not an feeling, and the first statement could really be translated to mean "I feel hurt and resentment and it's because you never listen. My feelings are evidence of this fact."

 

Feeling hurt is not actually evidence, in a strict sense, that the other party doesn't listen. And because it's framed as a "feeling", it's in the land of unfalsifiability. I cannot tell you that you don't feel hurt, obviously. That would be ridiculous. I can't do that because only you know that, subjectively. But whether or not I ever listen is something that is a claim which is true or false. The effect of mixing the two up is that I'm an asshole if I challenge your feeling that that I never listen. That would be manipulative.

 

Being honest about your expectations and your experience of the relationship is not manipulative.

 

--------------------

 

I guess the way to determine if you fit whatever particular definition of manipulative woman Stef was using, you would need to identify the specific principle. For example, by implication, I put forward the principle that framing conclusions about other people (like in the way I described) as if they were feelings is manipulative.

 

Without knowing what the principle is, I would hesitate to condemn yourself. I would also stay far away from people who make accusations like that without putting forward rational principles / arguments, because all they are really doing is appealing to your insecurity. Also, there's not lesson to learn if you really are doing something bad, so it's pretty pointless. It could simply be that your desire to have integrity and be a good woman is being used against you in an effort to manipulate you, which would be projection on the part of the accuser.

 

Without the principle, I can't really say.

 

If someone makes a claim like, "You don't listen" then how are you supposed to prove that? Should you try to prove that? If this was a physical altercation and the statement was "I feel like you just slapped my face with a book", well, no one would phrase it that way. They would just say "You just hit me with a book" because they can point to evidence to back them up. The red mark on their face. The book in the other persons hand, etc. I think that is why people say "I feel like you don't listen" because it seems like "not being listened to" is something that can't be proven.

 

I realize that one of these things is agressive force and the other is just words, and I agree that certain people should be avoided in the first place, but that is not always an option.

[J. D. Stembal]

I would love some insight from an outsider (who may have personally dealt with this problem before too?) I am having trouble trusting myself and my feelings. For instance, when I listen to podcasts about how manipulative and money-grubbing women can be I find myself getting a little uncomfortable As if he were pointing me out and specifically telling me I'm a terrible human being. (I realize this is totally irrational, that's the problem) I find that I have had to talk myself down on a number of occasions by reminding myself that I am not like those women at all. I am in a wonderful, committed relationship with a good and virtuous man, and we have spent a long time together working to find reason and consistency in how we live our lives.

 

My problem is that I am having a hard time dissociating rational feelings from irrational "crazy girl" emotions that could be manipulative on some level. I am really trying to set myself apart from all of the other women out there who manipulate their way to where they want. Has anyone else experienced this?

 

I'm not certain exactly what you mean by irrational female emotions, although I could imagine based on my experience in relationships with women.

 

The fact that you acknowledge that you have emotions that you need to express is very important. Very often, I have seen women frame emotions as accusations (You are making me feel bad!) and refusing to take ownership over them. (My period is making me crazy!)

 

As long as you aren't doing either of the above, I'm not sure how you are being manipulative. By virtue of taking the time to write this on FDR, you are demonstrating ownership over yourself and your feelings.

 

What does the man say about it?

[villagewisdom]

I did a podcast last week on the difference between shame and guilt that might be useful to you. You can find it here: http://peacefulheartvillage.com/vwp019-shame-and-guilt

 

Also, I just recently found evidence that the way a woman's brain is wired to perform under stress, or more precisely fear for her survival, can turn her into a screaming shrew and then back to normal when the stress is removed. Lizard brain stuff. Some of your doubt may come from your knowledge of what you are capable of if you feel or perceive your survival, or the survival of your children, job, relationship, etc., is threatened. Not quite the same I know, but still related to the fear of being "a bad person".  

[Pepin]

The gender topic isn't new to FDR, but I think was better discussed in the early podcasts because it was more subtle as well as being less abrasive, which allowed people to take in and think about the topic a little more. It isn't that what isn't being said now isn't true, it is more that it won't be as effective for people who are new to the argument.

 

To make a comparison, we all know that we have to ease people into the idea of anarchy. Talking off the cuff about the ideas to people tends not to work very well, even if they are bright and open, simply because the ideas are so different from the norm. You want to ease them in as to not frighten them. The same goes for talk of family. With radical feminism, gender politics, and many other factors at play, I would suggest that many people are frightened by the subject of gender.

 

Given the state of culture, it is very difficult for most people to process the argument when it is coming at such a fast pace, especially since it will likely activate their fight or flight response, and I think many people who stumble onto the podcast are going to have their prefrontal cortex disengaged.

 

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the arguments, but rather that since the topic is extremely touchy, how you make the argument matters a lot. Though it is a guess, I would imagine that more people would be convinced by a softer argument than a harder one because the bomb in the brain won't really allow for much thinking with the harder one.

 

 I had to remind myself that even if I'am guilty of some of the things in the video, it has had alot to do with not understanding my motivation, my upbringing, media conditioning, has had alot to do with this so I can forgive myself for some of it now.

 

It is also very genetic. There are various phenotypes that are more common to each sex. A lot of what Stefan describes is just evolutionary theory.

 

As a male for instance, I find that I have a strong desire to check out and have sex with any somewhat attractive woman. I don't really judge myself for this because it is just my programming. In human history, something like only 1/20 males actually conceived children. Because of this, males have a huge instinctive drive for sex because those genes were selected for. The fact that I am very interested in having sex with females is pretty expected.

 

I would judge myself for how I handle these desires. If I were to try to have sex with every woman I saw, then I would have a pretty negative judgement of myself. I take responsibility for my actions, but not for my desires.

 

Females really didn't face the issue of not getting any, so their sex drive is not as strong. They mostly dealt with selection, and many of the phenotypes today are just mating strategies. For instance, it is pretty common in mammals for a female to be impregnated by a male with the best genes, but the issue is that since these males are having sex with many other females, they don't have much incentive to take care of the offspring. The female will get around this by roping in a less attractive male who has to take care of the young to get the female, but of course the male gets tricked into taking care of an offspring that isn't theirs.

 

The obvious parallel is there with humans, and I think if a female is having that sort of desire that it is just their genes talking. But, if a female is to act on that impulse, well that is pretty messed up.

 

Though I am quite sure you are aware of this, I am writing up this post in detail because the genetic aspect is often missed on the FDR forum. Childhood and culture are of course very important, but so are genes.

[J. D. Stembal]

In human history, something like only 1/20 males actually conceived children. Because of this, males have a huge instinctive drive for sex because those genes were selected for. The fact that I am very interested in having sex with females is pretty expected.

 

How do we know if this one-in-twenty statistic is valid or not without paternity tests? Women do not know for certain who the father of their child is if they've had romantic encounters with multiple men over a short span of time.

[Kevin Beal]

If someone makes a claim like, "You don't listen" then how are you supposed to prove that? Should you try to prove that? If this was a physical altercation and the statement was "I feel like you just slapped my face with a book", well, no one would phrase it that way. They would just say "You just hit me with a book" because they can point to evidence to back them up. The red mark on their face. The book in the other persons hand, etc. I think that is why people say "I feel like you don't listen" because it seems like "not being listened to" is something that can't be proven.

 

I realize that one of these things is agressive force and the other is just words, and I agree that certain people should be avoided in the first place, but that is not always an option.

This is the basic argument is this:

 

premise 1) Feelings are subjective, qualitative unfalsifiable experiences

conclusion 1) I cannot tell you what you do or don't feel, and for me to try kinda makes me an asshole (e.x. "no, you don't feel hurt")

p2) The statement "you don't listen" can be validated, even if it is difficult (by repeating back, or showing they are deaf, etc)

p3) The statement "you don't listen" is not subjective, first person or unfalsifiable

c2) "You don't listen" is not a feeling

p4) "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics." - Google

p5) Framing the accusation "You don't listen" as if it were a feeling is false

p6) A consequence of sharing a feeling is that no one can argue with it (because it is subjective)

c3) The effect of framing "you don't listen" as a feeling is that people can't argue with it

p7) To say false things, expecting them to take it as true, for a particular effect is deceptive

p8) The intent of saying this is clearly for the purpose of changing the perceptions and behavior of others (e.x. to get them to listen more, or apologize, etc)

c4) Saying "I feel like you don't listen" is manipulative

 

This argument does not preclude the possibility that you do it because you can't prove the claim. If the claim was "you entered my dream last night and gave me a nightmare", it would still be manipulative. In fact, you could argue that makes it even more manipulative, because you are in even less of a position to defend yourself.

 

If you are engaged with a bully and can't reasonably get away, then I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with being manipulative. I heard that psychologists are often trained to use manipulation, like with certain personality disorders (don't quote me on that). So, it's not as simple as "manipulation is always bad". I'm mostly talking about actual relationships, like with friends or lovers as is, I believe, the context with which the OP asked her question.

 

If she is dating a bully, then maybe she should just leave. If she is not, then I don't think this sort of "I feel" statement is just. It's one example of manipulation.

 

There are several "OP is too X" or "Stef is too X" kinds of statements that are being made and responded to, but not so much in the way of logical arguments, or standards, or anything to actually measure against. (Where X can mean "manipulative" or "abrasive"). The problem with that is that I can just say "nope, Stef was not too abrasive" and no counter argument is logically required of me (because arguing against what, exactly). And I do believe what I'm saying, I'm not just being a contrarian.

 

If someone is doing something bad and needs to improve, then we have to know what the principle is, or all it is is anxiety management, and not living a principled life, is counterproductive. So far, we don't know what the principles are, so I'm attempting to provide what principles are and why they are important. I'm trying to do what I'm prescribing.

 

Without the principle, there is no possibility of resolution.

[Nutrigirl26]

Thank you all for your responses. This has really helped. I have not finished RTR yet, but I am in the process of finishing up the last of the book. I have grown so much in the last years and I have worked really hard to self-reflect on all my actions and feelings. I guess the last big hurtle I have to jump over is going to be what Kevin mentioned above about how feelings and emotions cannot be manipulative. Now that I reflect more on most of my past arguments with my SO, I see that this is the biggest cause of bad communication on my part. I have to say that it is very difficult being raised with everyone telling you that anything and everything you feel and act on is justified because you are a woman and all of your actions and feelings are someone else's problem... then you have to try to fix years of programming to be irrational, you know? Not that I was ever one of those crazy girls. Honestly, I have always found it hard to become friends with other girls just because you have to sacrifice so much about yourself to "fit it". Anyways, thank you guys!

[MMX2010]

The gender topic isn't new to FDR, but I think was better discussed in the early podcasts because it was more subtle as well as being less abrasive, which allowed people to take in and think about the topic a little more. It isn't that what isn't being said now isn't true, it is more that it won't be as effective for people who are new to the argument.

 

To make a comparison, we all know that we have to ease people into the idea of anarchy. Talking off the cuff about the ideas to people tends not to work very well, even if they are bright and open, simply because the ideas are so different from the norm. You want to ease them in as to not frighten them. The same goes for talk of family. With radical feminism, gender politics, and many other factors at play, I would suggest that many people are frightened by the subject of gender.

 

Given the state of culture, it is very difficult for most people to process the argument when it is coming at such a fast pace, especially since it will likely activate their fight or flight response, and I think many people who stumble onto the podcast are going to have their prefrontal cortex disengaged.

 

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the arguments, but rather that since the topic is extremely touchy, how you make the argument matters a lot. Though it is a guess, I would imagine that more people would be convinced by a softer argument than a harder one because the bomb in the brain won't really allow for much thinking with the harder one.

 

 

I agree with you, but there's a tremendous obstacle to your suggestion: the nature and make-up of the long-time FDR listeners. 

 

A sizable portion of the FDR-audience are MGTOWs, and Stefan has interviewed MGTOWs on multiple occasions (Paul Elam comes to mind).  On the other hand, hardly any FDR-members are "players", or "implementers of PUA", or "serial daters". 

 

Worse, the MGTOWs say things like, "PUA is manipulative and dishonest!" without having studied it (or without having implemented it long-term, over 100 approaches, the way Roosh would suggest).

 

This imbalance creates a desire for a harsher, stronger, fiercer anti-woman message that Stefan is feeding into. 

[Pepin]

How do we know if this one-in-twenty statistic is valid or not without paternity tests? Women do not know for certain who the father of their child is if they've had romantic encounters with multiple men over a short span of time.

 

I'm not really sure what method they used to estimate the figure, but I can imagine a couple of methods. You don't have to calculate who the father is, as we don't know any particular individual from +10,000 years in the past and because it is not important. I know they use these methods for other species.

 

I'll try to find a source. I've seen this on a few science news sites, and discussed in depth on a podcast a few months ago, but I'm having trouble finding the right words to search. Of course I might be off on the exact figure as I am recalling this from a few months ago, but it is something in that ballpark.

[Tony Crowe]

@Nutrigirl26,

 

It is nice to hear you are raising your standards for communication and self awareness. That sounds difficult and uncomfortable to deal with. Does it ever feel like you are being threatened when you hear something contrary to what you believe?

 

-TC

[snapdragon]

maybe, as a woman, you are offended by what stefan says because its offensive to women. perhaps he says incredibly judgmental and jaded things about women, and that is what is annoying you. it could be that him tacking on the odd "oh im not talking about the noble virtuous women out there" doesn't satisfy your reaction to his calling women out as resource grabbing estrogen beasts. maybe. (of course the women reading this aren't estogen beasts, just all those horrid other non virtuous women.)

[Kevin Beal]

maybe, as a woman, you are offended by what stefan says because its offensive to women. perhaps he says incredibly judgmental and jaded things about women, and that is what is annoying you. it could be that him tacking on the odd "oh im not talking about the noble virtuous women out there" doesn't satisfy your reaction to his calling women out as resource grabbing estrogen beasts. maybe. (of course the women reading this aren't estogen beasts, just all those horrid other non virtuous women.)

No, actually you are being judgmental, offensive, unjust and you are clearly jaded.

 

Have a great day!

[snapdragon]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree Kevin. You have a great day too.

[shirgall]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...

 

Are you trying to provoke people? That phrase is a hallmark of irrational exuberance.

[MMX2010]

Are you trying to provoke people? That phrase is a hallmark of irrational exuberance.

 

My read: she's a typical female experiencing negative emotions around Stefan's rants against women.  And she really does want to have a rational conversation about her annoyance with Stefan's rants.  But she doesn't know how to ask charmingly when she's annoyed, and no one (as yet) wants to extend an olive branch to her. 

[snapdragon]

no, i don't really need to have a "rational conversation" about it. i said what i needed to say. i stand by it. you are welcome to agree or disagree. you are welcome to think whatever you like about me or my statements. that is your right. as it is my right to care or not care about your responses to me or my statements.

 

and you are welcome to refer to me by name, although there seems to be a general badassery to being the SHE, so that's fine too. in fact, i think i kind of like it... 

[hannahbanana]

Thank you all for your responses. This has really helped. I have not finished RTR yet, but I am in the process of finishing up the last of the book. I have grown so much in the last years and I have worked really hard to self-reflect on all my actions and feelings. I guess the last big hurtle I have to jump over is going to be what Kevin mentioned above about how feelings and emotions cannot be manipulative. Now that I reflect more on most of my past arguments with my SO, I see that this is the biggest cause of bad communication on my part. I have to say that it is very difficult being raised with everyone telling you that anything and everything you feel and act on is justified because you are a woman and all of your actions and feelings are someone else's problem... then you have to try to fix years of programming to be irrational, you know? Not that I was ever one of those crazy girls. Honestly, I have always found it hard to become friends with other girls just because you have to sacrifice so much about yourself to "fit it". Anyways, thank you guys!

 

Everyone's basically said what I would say in regards to this topic, but I just wanted to reiterate that the feelings of uncertainty and discomfort are not necessarily bad, nor are they uncommon. Like Pepin said, it's similar to being introduced to anarchy, where the truth can be just plain uncomfortable to hear.

In the case of women's behavior, you probably already know that women can behave like that. I don't know if it is similar for you, but you mentioned that you already find it difficult to "fit in" with other women, and there's probably a reason for that. Do you also think about your own identity a lot in terms of how it is different from other women? There's probably a reason for that too. Part of the discomfort comes, I think, in the way it is very bluntly stated, since people normally have to beat around the bush when it comes to the topic of women's flaws, especially with the dominance of feminism in so much of society. If anyone pointed out the often manipulative behavior of many women in any other setting, there would be a lot of angry and offended women. Just like pointing out that taxation is theft gets a lot of people's blood boiling. And for most people, such a confrontation is to be avoided at all costs. So I can totally understand that it would take some time getting used to hearing these criticisms said in such a direct way.

Of course, you may be thinking about it in a different way. These are just my thoughts on it, in relation to my experience of the topic. Either way, I really do empathize. I'm glad to hear that you feel better about it, and that people's comments have helped

[Nutrigirl26]

@Nutrigirl26,

 

It is nice to hear you are raising your standards for communication and self awareness. That sounds difficult and uncomfortable to deal with. Does it ever feel like you are being threatened when you hear something contrary to what you believe?

 

-TC

 

Yes! Thank you! That is exactly what it feels like. It pulls at the deepest parts of me it seems when someone argues against something I believe or argues for something I believe not to be true. Actually, I think it bothers me more when I know I'm right about something, but the other person thinks they are right too. I'm sure that bothers everyone though. 

 

But more to the point, yes. I feel like everything I am is being threatened and I have to fight back with every ounce of me in order to make it through. I wonder how common that feeling is.

maybe, as a woman, you are offended by what stefan says because its offensive to women. perhaps he says incredibly judgmental and jaded things about women, and that is what is annoying you. it could be that him tacking on the odd "oh im not talking about the noble virtuous women out there" doesn't satisfy your reaction to his calling women out as resource grabbing estrogen beasts. maybe. (of course the women reading this aren't estogen beasts, just all those horrid other non virtuous women.)

 

I understand what you are trying to say, I think, but I really don't see that as a possibility. I do believe that in the beginning I was offended by the generalizing nature of this conversation about women, but since those first few podcasts I listened to, I think my outlook on this entire conversation has changed drastically. I would not group myself with any of those women that you mentioned above. In fact, even looking back on myself in the previous years since childhood, I wouldn't pin myself as the type of women that Stef talks about. 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Now, it does bother me that sometimes I get all tangled up in that category by people who don't know any better and I find myself trying to prove to strangers that I am one of the "good women" out there just like I am sure most of the men do too. 

[Slavik]

Yes! Thank you! That is exactly what it feels like. It pulls at the deepest parts of me it seems when someone argues against something I believe or argues for something I believe not to be true. Actually, I think it bothers me more when I know I'm right about something, but the other person thinks they are right too. I'm sure that bothers everyone though. 

 

But more to the point, yes. I feel like everything I am is being threatened and I have to fight back with every ounce of me in order to make it through. I wonder how common that feeling is.

 

I understand what you are trying to say, I think, but I really don't see that as a possibility. I do believe that in the beginning I was offended by the generalizing nature of this conversation about women, but since those first few podcasts I listened to, I think my outlook on this entire conversation has changed drastically. I would not group myself with any of those women that you mentioned above. In fact, even looking back on myself in the previous years since childhood, I wouldn't pin myself as the type of women that Stef talks about. 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Now, it does bother me that sometimes I get all tangled up in that category by people who don't know any better and I find myself trying to prove to strangers that I am one of the "good women" out there just like I am sure most of the men do too. 

Hi Nutrigirl, thank you for sharing your experiences and concerns.  What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all,"  are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for.  Im wondering if this might apply to you?  As in you are not the type of a woman that Stef is talking about, but you have a capacity to be?  The reason Im bringing this up is that by recognizing my capacity for abuse, I got o honestly work on it in therapy.  In my therapist words "just because you have capacity for a bad behavior doesnt make you a bad person, it is only a part that you might want to address."

 

Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B.  There could be something different that is coming into play with you.

[MMX2010]

Hi Nutrigirl, thank you for sharing your experiences and concerns.  What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all,"  are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for.  

 

Finding out that you "have the capacity for something" isn't nearly the same thing as "finding out that you actually do that thing".

 

Telling someone that they have the capacity for something isn't therapeutic and isn't helping them achieve self-knowledge. 

[MMX2010]

Everyone who downvoted my comment above isn't married and has never been married. 

 

The most important thing about a married woman is her emotional state.  When a wife is happy, the marriage is almost certainly happy.  When she isn't, the marriage isn't. 

 

When Slavik says, "What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all,"  are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for.", he's not focusing on the central question that's negatively influencing NutriGirl's mood, "Am I manipulative and money-grubbing as a woman?" 

 

By not focusing on the central question, he's not helping NutriGirl get to the bottom of that question.  Worse, when he implies that therapy helped him realize that he "has the capacity" for certain negative behaviors, he's encouraging NutriGirl to focus on her "capacity" rather than on her actual behaviors. 

 

That Slavik cannot conduct himself in a way that helps NutriGirl is disappointing.  That members of FDR downvote my criticism of him is also disappointing, but I wouldn't expect anything different from unmarried men who don't empathize with women. 

[MMX2010]

He did not in any way "tell her she has the capacity" for the manipulation she is worried about. He suggested in an understandable manner that exploring those capacities has been helpful for him, and it could be for her too. It would be up to her to determine whether it is in fact helpful to her to further her self-knowledge.

 

If you were going to defend Slavik's post, you'd have to apply Slavik's logic to yourself.  But if I applied Slavik's logic to you, I don't think you'd like it. 

 

Example #1 - Question, "Do you (or do you not) have the capacity to abuse a small child?  How do you know either way?" 

 

I'm guessing you don't want to explore that topic, right?  And if you don't, I don't blame you - because (as I said earlier) it doesn't matter whether you have the capacity to do a deed, it matters whether you have (or have not) done that deed.  And for my money, as long as you're never in a position to do that nefarious deed, knowing whether or not you have the capacity to do that deed is insignificant. 

 

It would've been so much better for both NutriGirl and Slavik if Slavik had focused on the specific character traits NutriGirl was worried about (money grubbing and manipulation), rather than casually hinting that therapy has helped him discover certain capacities about himself. 

[Slavik]

If you were going to defend Slavik's post, you'd have to apply Slavik's logic to yourself.  But if I applied Slavik's logic to you, I don't think you'd like it. 

 

Example #1 - Question, "Do you (or do you not) have the capacity to abuse a small child?  How do you know either way?" 

 

I'm guessing you don't want to explore that topic, right?  And if you don't, I don't blame you - because (as I said earlier) it doesn't matter whether you have the capacity to do a deed, it matters whether you have (or have not) done that deed.  And for my money, as long as you're never in a position to do that nefarious deed, knowing whether or not you have the capacity to do that deed is insignificant. 

 

It would've been so much better for both NutriGirl and Slavik if Slavik had focused on the specific character traits NutriGirl was worried about (money grubbing and manipulation), rather than casually hinting that therapy has helped him discover certain capacities about himself. 

In order to reply to me properly, you need to stop using sampling and tread the whole thing in context, namely this part

 

Quote:"Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B.  There could be something different that is coming into play with you."  

 

Now do you honestly think that by taking a small sample completely out of context where I have already covered relevant part, do you think twisting this all up on its head.  What are you trying to accomplish by attacking me in such manner.  I am seriously getting quiet fed up with you and your incessant picking.  

 

Are you having trouble understanding subjective perspective?  Do you not understand what asking a question means or making a hypothesis?  Do you not know the difference between suggesting a possibility and making a conclusion?  

 

You took a sample which makes it look like I made a conclusion, read the whole thing and stop trolling

[MMX2010]

 

Now do you honestly think that by taking a small sample completely out of context

 

Complaining that I took you out of context is ironic, given that your post to NutriGirl doesn't address her problem at all. 

 

Her problem is that she has trouble trusting her feelings about her manipulative nature and her money-grubbing desires, because Stefan says completely ridiculous things like, "Wearing Make Up Means You're Lying To Men" and calls some women ridiculous names like "Estrogen Based Parasites".   

 

How do your experiences with therapy help her either address her self-doubts OR make Stefan's hyperbolic criticisms of women become more realistic? 

[Slavik]

Complaining that I took you out of context is ironic, given that your post to NutriGirl doesn't address her problem at all. 

 

Her problem is that she has trouble trusting her feelings about her manipulative nature and her money-grubbing desires, because Stefan says completely ridiculous things like, "Wearing Make Up Means You're Lying To Men" and calls some women ridiculous names like "Estrogen Based Parasites".   

 

How do your experiences with therapy help her either address her self-doubts OR make Stefan's hyperbolic criticisms of women become more realistic? 

This is not a therapy session, the only thing I can do on the boards is precisely what I did.  You still have not addressed your use of straw man, and using samples to paint me in a negative light.  I do not see a reason to addressing anything further until you address your twisting of my words and coming to completely baseless conclusions about my previous posts.  Either address my previous points  or this conversation is over, and if its over and you find no problem with insulting me in such manner, then do me a favor and stay away from my posts in the future.

[MMX2010]

I understand what you are trying to say, I think, but I really don't see that as a possibility. I do believe that in the beginning I was offended by the generalizing nature of this conversation about women, but since those first few podcasts I listened to, I think my outlook on this entire conversation has changed drastically. I would not group myself with any of those women that you mentioned above. In fact, even looking back on myself in the previous years since childhood, I wouldn't pin myself as the type of women that Stef talks about. 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Now, it does bother me that sometimes I get all tangled up in that category by people who don't know any better and I find myself trying to prove to strangers that I am one of the "good women" out there just like I am sure most of the men do too. 

 

You shouldn't have to prove yourself to complete strangers, nor should you feel compelled to do so by Stefan's criticisms of women.  Your husband loves you and your friends love you; that's all that really matters. 

This is not a therapy session, the only thing I can do on the boards is precisely what I did.  You still have not addressed your use of straw man, and using samples to paint me in a negative light.  I do not see a reason to addressing anything further until you address your twisting of my words and coming to completely baseless conclusions about my previous posts.  Either address my previous points  or this conversation is over, and if its over and you find no problem with insulting me in such manner, then do me a favor and stay away from my posts in the future.

 

I'm painting your post in a negative light for what it does not contain. 

 

NutriGirl points out that some of Stefan's podcasts make it very difficult for her to trust her emotions, particularly surrounding topics like "manipulation" and "money-grubbing tendencies".  It doesn't take much brain power to deduce which of Stefan's podcasts are making her feel this way.  They are the Estrogen Based Parasites show, the Wearing Make-Up Means You're Lying To Men rant, and the No Excuse For Female Evil rant. 

 

Does NurtiGirl deserve to experience the self-doubt that those podcasts trigger?  Why or why not?  Are Stefan's criticisms accurate or too excessive?  And does Stefan bear responsibility for both the language he uses in his podcasts and the negative emotions they trigger in women? 

 

--------------------

 

Your post is being painted in a negative light, because you never empathized with NutriGirl by asking yourself the above questions. 

 

Look at your words here, "Hi Nutrigirl, thank you for sharing your experiences and concerns.  What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all,"  are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for.  Im wondering if this might apply to you?  As in you are not the type of a woman that Stef is talking about, but you have a capacity to be?  The reason Im bringing this up is that by recognizing my capacity for abuse, I got o honestly work on it in therapy.  In my therapist words "just because you have capacity for a bad behavior doesnt make you a bad person, it is only a part that you might want to address."

 

Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B.  There could be something different that is coming into play with you."

 

 

Your words replace the very reasonable question, "Hey, NutriGirl, have you ever done the horrible behaviors that Stefan criticizes?" with the completely unreasonable question, "Hey, NutriGirl, do you have the capacity for doing the horrible behaviors that Stefan criticizes?" 

 

That you replace reasonable with unreasonable is why your posts are being portrayed in a negative light.  That you prefer to keep NurtiGirl in a position of self-doubt and insecurity, rather than uplifting her out of it is why your posts are being portrayed in a negative light. 

 

You are not being taken out-of-context.  You are not being strawmanned.  You're being criticized for your post. 

[Slavik]

You shouldn't have to prove yourself to complete strangers, nor should you feel compelled to do so by Stefan's criticisms of women.  Your husband loves you and your friends love you; that's all that really matters. 

 

I'm painting your post in a negative light for what it does not contain. 

 

NutriGirl points out that some of Stefan's podcasts make it very difficult for her to trust her emotions, particularly surrounding topics like "manipulation" and "money-grubbing tendencies".  It doesn't take much brain power to deduce which of Stefan's podcasts are making her feel this way.  They are the Estrogen Based Parasites show, the Wearing Make-Up Means You're Lying To Men rant, and the No Excuse For Female Evil rant. 

 

Does NurtiGirl deserve to experience the self-doubt that those podcasts trigger?  Why or why not?  Are Stefan's criticisms accurate or too excessive?  And does Stefan bear responsibility for both the language he uses in his podcasts and the negative emotions they trigger in women? 

 

--------------------

 

Your post is being painted in a negative light, because you never empathized with NutriGirl by asking yourself the above questions. 

 

Look at your words here, "Hi Nutrigirl, thank you for sharing your experiences and concerns.  What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all,"  are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for.  Im wondering if this might apply to you?  As in you are not the type of a woman that Stef is talking about, but you have a capacity to be?  The reason Im bringing this up is that by recognizing my capacity for abuse, I got o honestly work on it in therapy.  In my therapist words "just because you have capacity for a bad behavior doesnt make you a bad person, it is only a part that you might want to address."

 

Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B.  There could be something different that is coming into play with you."

 

 

Your words replace the very reasonable question, "Hey, NutriGirl, have you ever done the horrible behaviors that Stefan criticizes?" with the completely unreasonable question, "Hey, NutriGirl, do you have the capacity for doing the horrible behaviors that Stefan criticizes?" 

 

That you replace reasonable with unreasonable is why your posts are being portrayed in a negative light.  That you prefer to keep NurtiGirl in a position of self-doubt and insecurity, rather than uplifting her out of it is why your posts are being portrayed in a negative light. 

 

You are not being taken out-of-context.  You are not being strawmanned.  You're being criticized for your post. 

"I'm painting your post in a negative light for what it does not contain"  Yet another definition of a straw man.

 

"Does NurtiGirl deserve to experience the self-doubt that those podcasts trigger?"  Deserve, this a non sequitur, since she is already in self doubt and asking to help explore the reason for it, deserve or not deserve is irrelevant.  She is already in self doubt, and trying to explore it, the "church love bomb" approach is the opposite of self-exploration. 

 

"That you prefer to keep NurtiGirl in a position of self-doubt and insecurity"  I do not prefer anything, there is no preference in my post what so ever, that yet another one of your baseless conclusions.  Exploring many possibilities is how you gain self knowledge, not by saying "Im right and all of you are wrong"  as you seem to be doing endlessly.

 

No, you do not get to "reasonably"  replace any words, when you do it takes on completely different meaning, by calling it "reasonable" doesnt change the fact that its a complete logical fallacy and completely unreasonable. 

 

Replacing my words and attacking a conclusion by replacing the wrods is the very definition of straw man argument.  Logic 101

 

Considering that you have no knowledge of the subject, you are making erroneous statements and conclusions.  You are really out of place trying to correct someone who has the knowledge of the subject.  

 

You seriously have no idea what it means when people say "a person has a capacity for something."  Anyways I can see that you have no problem with insults straw man and baseless conclusions, so as I have nicely asked before, stay away from my future posts.

[Lens]

Sorry this is off topic but just a reminder for some enlightened board members to listen to two Gold Podcasts called What Trolls Reveal 1&2. I think it will help a lot of people to stop to debate with the unreasonable and also investigate psychologically why some of us continuously challenge the irrational and the unreasonable and why trolls enjoy our agony in hopelessly us trying to change them, turn them into good people and make them understand how we are hurt although we know they don't have empathy and we always forget it. Enjoy listening.

[Frosty]

Thank you all for your responses. This has really helped. I have not finished RTR yet, but I am in the process of finishing up the last of the book. I have grown so much in the last years and I have worked really hard to self-reflect on all my actions and feelings. I guess the last big hurtle I have to jump over is going to be what Kevin mentioned above about how feelings and emotions cannot be manipulative. Now that I reflect more on most of my past arguments with my SO, I see that this is the biggest cause of bad communication on my part. I have to say that it is very difficult being raised with everyone telling you that anything and everything you feel and act on is justified because you are a woman and all of your actions and feelings are someone else's problem... then you have to try to fix years of programming to be irrational, you know? Not that I was ever one of those crazy girls. Honestly, I have always found it hard to become friends with other girls just because you have to sacrifice so much about yourself to "fit it". Anyways, thank you guys!

 

I think this reveals some of the truth behind the situation. I'd argue that women tend to behave like this more than men, there's a really fantastic blogger/vlogger called Karen Straughan AKA GirlWriteWhat, who Stefan has had discussions with in the past. She admits up front that one of her more valuable assets as a blogger about gender issues is that she can talk about the problems of women without taking it personally. So she can discuss something like hypergamy calmly and not take it as a slight against her personally. She definitely comes across as a woman with a very male brain so this doesn't surprise me really.

 

I guess a lot of this is down to biology, women hold all the cards when it comes to sexual reproduction and basically when it comes to relationships, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap and this forms the basis of almost all human sexual and intimate interaction, multiple men proposition women and women get to pick between her suitors, the situation is asymmetric. Because of this women to some degree can get away with more, they can be a little bit crazy and emotionally volatile and essentially get away with it because, and I'm sorry to be crass, guys still want to fuck them.

 

Bill Burr did a fantastic bit of standup on this which immediately rings true to certainly all men but I think most women - you can see it here and the audiences reaction is striking, there's plenty of women cheering at that, we all know its true to some degree -

 

It's really the same thing with all bioloigically driven behaviours, you just have to have self knowledge that you have that predisposition and then be actively on the lookout for your own reactions and be able to curb them before they happen, it's something that takes mental effort to maintain. Men have similar analogues, wanting to sleep with everything that moves, even when you know the woman is crazy it's tempting to just ignore the possible consequences, men tell each other "don't stick your dick in crazy" but a lot of us still do it from time to time, I'm guilty of that.

 

Both sexes have things to work on in order to improve the relationships between men and women and in some respect men are complicit in female behaviour because generally speaking people can only get away with what other people allow them to, if men started rejecting all crazy women then there'd be a dramatic decrease in crazy.

 

Unfortunately it seems like today we're going the opposite way, we have a lot of feminists and SJWs who are starting to really seriously police what people can do or even say in fear that it will upset or trigger someone, we're not even allowed to appluad any more, we have to do jazzhands, it's ridiculous. Having women with self knowledge and who make an effort to buck the trend is really refreshing to hear, I think it's great you acknowledged this and you're working on it, you'll get nothing but benefit from doing so.

[Joe the Hobo]

I read through most of this thread but I think it's simpler than all this complex stuff people are getting into: it's just a case of generalisation and not wanting to be misinterpreted. If someone were to say "nazis are white" I'd feel that uncomfortable rise in my stomach and think "Hey, I'm white and I'm not a nazi, infact I'm striving for virtue and rationality!".

I think it's a rational reaction when someone makes a negative generalisation which doesn't apply to you.

 

Perhaps, then, it is just a sign you are desparate for the truth to be out!