Are women capable of agency?

[S1988]

7 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Hello! @S1988 Am I speaking with a lady? 

Yes, you are.

7 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

It is hard to be part of a family if you are a hermit. And I totally understand that it is possible to not hate men or kids and still not feel like that family life is for you. 

I was trying to categorize the types of women in the reproductive realm. They may indeed not apply to you. 

Would you want a family, should you figure out how to properly parent yourself?

 I don't think I want a family even when I do learn how to self-parent. As a matter of fact, I think self-parenting may be a lifelong journey for me. There's nothing inside of me that yearns for a family, and I'm okay with that. I guess it's because I like being responsible for myself rather than having to be responsible for other people. 

[Elizbaeth]

19 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

You "need" men to be brave and heroic??? No you don't.  You need men to buy you stuff, build you stuff, prop up your fragile egos and die for you.  Your appeal comes across to me like classic tradcon damselling to get us back to the plantation.

Wow. Tradcon, damselling, plantation. 

Listen, @Dr. Dealgood. I’m 100% in agreement that men have been shafted in this current culture. I have not experienced what men experience, but I have a husband who has felt a lot of the current injustices and I have two sons who are going to have to face the world. Their problems are my problems, therefore I’m concerned with you, too. 

19 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

Nonsense.  Women are the gatekeepers of reproduction. Your gender gave birth to society. Your gender decided to upend the social system. You fix it. 

This part I agree with. But I’m a little harsh here. I think the only solution is to take things back 200 years. I wish I could say that we could all grow more enlightened and live in a world of equality and where people are forthright and open and not hiding lazy malevolence in them, but I truly think the majority of people are as bad as that. I think the masses of women have grown indulgent and gluttonous and too divorced from the pain, vulnerability, and desperate terror that can come with childbirth. I think women are lax with their standards for who they reproduce with because they can afford to do so. They don’t see the reality of the costs of children and the extreme danger it puts them in. I think most women would be perfectly happy married off at 18 and having babies for the next 10 years. Women would fix a lot of the problems by simply only having sex with a husband who was good enough to be worth marrying. But this would mean that a woman who wasn’t chaste would also not be worth marrying. And I’m not sure most women would stay chastens unless the consequences were severe. 

 

19 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

You "need" men to be brave and heroic??? No you don't.  You need men to buy you stuff, build you stuff, prop up your fragile egos and die for you. 

I think men, by their gender-specific personality traits, are the only who are capable of being heroic. And yes. I mean heroic. A hero defeats all odds and battles demons and discovers an amazing strength while fighting foes and is a savior. I consider Stefan to be quite heroic. Men are the heroes because men are less culpable to the mind games of social pressures. We women are typically quite afraid of breaking from the social norm - I’ve felt so very deep anxiety over causing issues with my mother, and disagreeing with her has been one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. Women like their cliques, and there are reasons for this. It’s built into us to find safety on the herd, and the emotional cost of going against the grain is pretty high. Men are more able to break from a group, more able to think about what is going on and what they should do, and I’m sure that testosterone helps them energetically combat opponents and analytically focus on what steps need to come next. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who could do all of that well. Men are equipped to be the heroes. Women aren’t. 

 

And yes, I do need men to build me stuff, and to buy me stuff. If I had decided not to have children, than no, I do not see why I could not have done all of that for myself. Before I had kids I did buy my own stuff and do my own stuff. But having children radically changes what I’m able to do, and I’m dependent on my husband. We could not exist as a family without his efforts and sacrifice. He is a brave man with big, strong, literal and figurative shoulders, and it would not have been possible without him. But just because I am meeting my need through him does not mean he is not appreciated, loved, and wanted for himself. Just like I met his needs for a fertile parter. He would not have dated me without thinking I could have given him kids and been a faithful partner, but that doesn’t mean he is exploiting me or unappreciative or unable to love me without the sex. 

And I mean civilization. I mean all the amazing ideas of the centuries and the incredible creations of civilization. It was 99% done by men. Women have been bound by their children, and this has become part of our personalities. We hold down the house and the kids. Men go out and tame the wild and conquer the elements and do heroic stuff and build civilization. Just because feminist have gone insane on the last 60 years doesn’t mean our biology has spontaneously changed, too. Women are, at the end of the day, still women, and men are still men. Men have always been the vanguards of Noble things, and women have been emotional and hate to break with the socially sanctioned behavior. It’s not going to change just because feminists have been trying to tear down things. 

[Elizbaeth]

@barn ok I’ll try again. 

I start out using a passive voice because a woman is set upon a path when she is a child. She is basically just surviving on the environment she is born into. I’m thinking that childhood experiences are critically important, and a person’a childhood has a inextricable effect on the person they grow up to be. 

I think, for women, the hangup happens because they are biologically primed to have kids around age 18. They basically go from parents to having kids (in evolutionary past) with little to no time in between. Further, women are deeply afraid of breakin from their social circles. Like, deeply deeply afraid, and it’s quite difficult to gain insightful knowledge when you’re emotionally hard-wired to believe and think what the family says. There is a reason that women were treated like larger children in the past. I do think that if a woman is better than that she will act like it and prove it. But there is a strong biological history of a woman basically going from her family of origin to her husband, and then immediately having kids. There is no time in there to unlearn bad behaviors and relearn new ones. Not before she has already had children.

 

23 minutes ago, barn said:

21 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

So, in the end, people do have the will and choice to choose, {1}but realize that people are set out on paths the moment they’re born, and women have very little time in which to gain awareness and then correct a bad path. {2}Sometimes it’s too late, even if she does learn and realize what is needed.

{1} - This is just false. Taking away agency, belittling women's responsibility for prior 'having not acted differently but could have' (I sort of guessing it's something similar that happened to you. Am I wrong in my assumption?).

I don’t think it’s false. Women really don’t have much time between childhood and prime reproductive abilities. That’s why a woman’s SMV typically peaks and then declines after age 25. And by saying that sometimes it’s too late, I meant that it would be too late for her to have her family. After age 35 a woman is reproducing on prayers and wishes.i also don’t think I’m belittling women. I don’t see an insult to women, or a judgment on women, or any negative interjection about women. I’m trying to argue that these are the reasons why a woman would not grow or learn. I’m just trying to give an account for what really happens and why it happens. I’m not giving an end judgement or taking away the possibility of free agency. 

And as for me - my actions were as predictable as a clock. It wasn’t until I totally separated myself from my family and all their trappings that I started to even think for myself and get a handle on what was happening. And even then, it wasn’t until my husband refused to enable some of my behaviors that I really faced them. I don’t think I had seen an accurate Murrow of myself until then. So maybe I’m just projecting my own issues into the female gender at large. That’s a possibility. 

[barn]

Howdy @Elizbaeth

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

ok I’ll try again. 

Still not one question? (don't have to but I had thought you had a problem understanding stuff... maybe not. Hmm, maybe you aren't trying to understand what I had proposed to you? Strange. )

Ok.

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I start out using a passive voice because a woman is set upon a path when she is a child. She is basically just surviving on the environment she is born into. *And men too, they are then both start equally(you could have mentioned that)* I’m thinking that childhood experiences are critically important, and a person’a childhood has a inextricable effect on the person they grow up to be. 

No. Your view is false.

"inextricable" = impossible to solve, stays a conundrum forever

That's why I keep saying you're locked in a deterministic mindset/worldview.

i. e. 'You are what your childhood was.' - Just plain wrong. What is true instead, is that what your childhood was is ONLY a part of you(if you aren't a child).

You could choose to decide how influential, prominent your past is to you. Big difference that is, right?!

 

Another great thing for those who grow up in falsehood, propaganda, coercion is that childhood doesn't last forever.

Taking responsibility for our own - & Allocating responsibility - for other people's actions leads to realisations that grant us the option to disregard bad parenting, falsehoods.

i. e. Narcissists didn't care for me, therefore what they taught/coerced me into served them but not me. Therefore, most of it could be simply bs and sabotaging my happiness, worth re-examination. If I defend it, I'll reproduce it. And upholding the same values will turn me into 'like them'. Do I think that's a good idea? I have a choice to make, actions to follow-up with... that is, if I'm serious about 'walking the walk'.

Just as, if an apology doesn't prevent the next recurrence, it wasn't a real apology.

After you're done being a child, the onus is on _insert agent_.

(Scary but very important red-pill question: When did you stop being a child?)

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I think, for women, the hangup happens because they are biologically primed to have kids around age 18. They basically go from parents to having kids (in evolutionary past) with little to no time in between.

I am biologically primed to consuming the maximum amount of sugar but don't do so. One thing is incentive, another is acting out something.

Women who are irresponsible do as you say. Responsible women think hard about the future consequences adequately, carefully choose supportive social structures and usually have a plan B as well(I've seen it turning the tides, I understood then why so worth it).

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Further, women are deeply afraid of breakin from their social circles. Like, deeply deeply afraid, and it’s quite difficult to gain insightful knowledge when you’re emotionally hard-wired to believe and think what the family says. There is a reason that women were treated like larger children in the past. I do think that if a woman is better than that she will act like it and prove it. But there is a strong biological history of a woman basically going from her family of origin to her husband, and then immediately having kids. There is no time in there to unlearn bad behaviors and relearn new ones. Not before she has already had children.

So therefore conformity is ok? Women can't possibly make decisions separate from the expectations of their existing social conventions?

In fact they can, but a large portion choose to not do so.

Though it would make a pretty good excuse, if there wasn't reason&evidence to see it's about choices people make, missed opportunities and their cost.

I don't believe for a second that virtuous women put up with coercion in their private life, or that there's nothing else but conformity. That’s why perhaps I find such virtuous women even more beautiful than what they physically are, will find them attractive even though aging. (i.e. a 7 becomes an 8 and stays an 8 regardless aging, or even incrementally gains more appreciation over time... at least that's what I experienced. Confirmed the opposite too... obviously I had to break up there because she was 'getting uglier'. I don't have a clue what would I have done if there was children in the equation. I empathise with those who have that 'square to circle'... must be haaaard.)

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

15 hours ago, barn said:

{1} - This is just false. Taking away agency, belittling women's responsibility for prior 'having not acted differently but could have' (I sort of guessing it's something similar that happened to you. Am I wrong in my assumption?).

I don’t think it’s false. Women really don’t have much time between childhood and prime reproductive abilities. That’s why a woman’s SMV typically peaks and then declines after age 25. And by saying that sometimes it’s too late, I meant that it would be too late for her to have her family. After age 35 a woman is reproducing on prayers and wishes.

Time - I know, tough. Yet, then they should act accordingly. If they don't, but could've...

After - So, what? She messed up. Her support group messed up. Her society took part. But she still won't attract a virtuous partner until she comes to terms with the 'sour grape' reality. And hopefully she'll share her story of failure so that other girls will not even think about taking things so lightly. Don't rush into establishing a family ignorantly, 'not planning, is planning for...' (have seen this too, committed a similar error myself as well)

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

i also don’t think I’m belittling women. I don’t see an insult to women, or a judgment on women, or any negative interjection about women.

Well, if women are helpless to make a difference in their own life due to social pressure, too little time available, biological incentives... etc. Perhaps they should be treated as children and told what to do. (Naturally, NO. I don't think that's the case, but you've been 'whiteknighting' for women imo...Following your logic, that's exactly what you would need to treat women as... pretty funny, given you are one. Understandable too. Please notice, my examples are what you had mentioned earlier.)

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I’m trying to argue that these are the reasons why a woman would not grow or learn. I’m just trying to give an account for what really happens and why it happens. I’m not giving an end judgement or taking away the possibility of free agency. 

If you had depicted women as not helpless children, (the following below) I might have given it a second guess...

Unfortunately no, I suspect that you are on a mission trying to convince others so that you don't have to face your own reality. (WITH ALL DUE RESPECT... If it is any worth to you, me saying it at this point. I am sorry but perhaps there's still an important red-pill for taking... It's for your own good, family, long term happiness.)

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

(women) don’t have much time

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

a woman is set upon a path

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

a person’a childhood has a inextricable effect on the person they grow up to be. 

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

They basically go from parents to having kids

 

14 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

There is no time in there to unlearn bad behaviors and relearn new ones. Not before she has already had children.

*this last one I suspect is what you hope to make others believe so that you can put your mind to rest*

And then I read you saying (was kinda eerie :-p) ...

So maybe I’m just projecting my own issues into the female gender at large. That’s a possibility. 

Yep, this is what I had meant you suspecting it too, deep down.

    
    On 01/17/2018 at 3:19 AM, Elizbaeth said:

    I think it is deterministic in a sense.

Me (back, a couple posts ago) pointing out that you probably knew deep down the same:

I don't doubt that you believe this (it's with a reason, with an incentive behind for you) but I also suspect that you suspect it too, the whole thing is somehow wobbly. (I could be wrong, but wanted to share anyway.)

Barnsley

P.s. /Do you consider yourself an open minded person who demonstrates curiosity, pro-actively seeks understanding? Or rather someone who tends to avoid inconvenience(close relationships)?/

[Dr. Dealgood]

@Elizbaeth

As touching as your personal story is it is also anecdotal and irrelevant to a philosophical discussion about gender.  I'll accept that you have reasons for concern for the future and I'll add that you are by no means the only one.  As for your agreement with me about the nature of society really doesn't matter to me, what irritates me is your suggestions to resolve it.

Most feminists and tradcons use a never ending barrage of shame against men. However, shame only works on someone who has at least a teaspoon of respect for the shamer, even in the abstract. I assure you I can't be shamed. You on the other hand are attempting flattery and agreement to get men to be "heroes" to save you. Your methods are different but your end game is the same... you want men back on the plantation. Back in our gender roles since time immemorial.  Classic tradcon thinking.

Where does your strange appeal to some distant perfect past come from?  Were men better off then?  How far back do you want to go? The chivalry of Eleanor of Aquitaine in the 12th century?  Roman times starting at 600 BC?  Men and women were bound together through privation, toil and frequently dying. The precariousness of life and the social conventions of small human settlements kept men and women together but was it "better" for men than now? Only in the sense that social, religious conventions and female biology (pre-birth control) kept women's behavior in check. Society has always made men responsible. Women were always protected.

To me engaging in some historical speculations is a waste of time.  You can't undo technology. The world is what it is and there is no going back. Men know now that female empathy came from privation, scarcity and a lawless society. Females take a utilitarian view towards males and that morality, fundamentally based on empathy and reciprocity, is a male virtue that men project on women.  Now we have a gulf of distrust between the sexes and judging by my reading of Jezebel... pure undiluted hatred.

I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction about the future. I think humanity is going to face environmental catastrophe that will reshape this planet.  The polar icecaps will melt, the seas will rise and a whole lot of humans who live by the seas will begin the largest mass human migration inland.  Thankfully I will have passed from old age by that time but a lot of other folks won't be so lucky.

Second prediction and more interesting is I think there will be an economic meltdown. Much sooner than the first prediction. If you haven't read the book, you can watch the movie 'Too Big To Fail'... it is edifying to know just how close we came to a total financial collapse in 2008.  The system runs on two key things... trust and men willing to sacrifice themselves.  Not only are those two things becoming less available but so is the US Treasury's ability to borrow money.  The system will fail and it will be a monumental meltdown.

Sadly, in a feminized world everyone will adopt the female value system.  Narcissism, self-entitlement and avoidance. (There will probably be a hefty dose of escapism into BDSM porn too but I digress....)

And then there is me. You see I am a 'BLM' guy.  That's "Beer, Lawn chair, Marshmellows".... Women set the world on fire and I am going to watch.  No more saving women.  Solve problems on your own.

Oh, and lastly my advice for you to give to your sons... tell them to never get married.

[RichardY]

@S1988 Why are you even posting, about not wanting a family? 

Why not pump out some kids for company, as opposed to being a 45 year old cat lady. 

[S1988]

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

@S1988 Why are you even posting, about not wanting a family? 

Why not pump out some kids for company, as opposed to being a 45 year old cat lady. 

One shouldn't have kids because they fear being alone. Parents should support children, not the other way around. If they fear loneliness, they should seek out another adult, not use children as companion substitutes. (I've been there; having a parent lean on you is anything but fun.) Besides, me not having a family doesn't hurt anyone. There are already too many people who have children who shouldn't be, my parents included sadly, and I don't want to continue that cycle.

Anyways, I don't feel lonely; I'm pretty much a natural loner. My problem is people who can't seem to understand that and try to fix something that doesn't need fixing, something I've been going through since childhood. If they're bothered by my loner lifestyle, they should seek out people like them, not try to change me. 

You say cat lady like it's a bad thing.   Besides, I don't overdo it. One cat's enough. 

[RichardY]

@S1988 Why not talk more about your interests, than what other people think you should do and what you think they should do.

Talk about being a hermit for instance. I'm looking at getting some land out the way somewhere, checking out of society. I think it's partially genetic being Northern European.

[S1988]

 

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Why not talk more about your interests, than what other people think you should do and what you think they should do.

Talk about being a hermit for instance. I'm looking at getting some land out the way somewhere, checking out of society. I think it's partially genetic being Northern European.

I have to admit, I'm not a literal hermit, just sort of one. (I did say semi-hermit.) I don't live in the mountains or the middle of nowhere; I actually live in a twin city area in an apartment, and I go out two to three times a week on average. I work from home, and I like to read, write, take naps, and hang with my cat.

I'm rather flattered that you wanted to know a bit about how I live because I so used to people judging me; it's a breath of fresh air. I guess it's because it takes a fellow loner to understand that. 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

16 minutes ago, S1988 said:

 

I have to admit, I'm not a literal hermit, just sort of one. (I did say semi-hermit.) I don't live in the mountains or the middle of nowhere; I actually live in a twin city area in an apartment, and I go out two to three times a week on average. I work from home, and I like to read, write, take naps, and hang with my cat.

I'm rather flattered that you wanted to know a bit about how I live because I so used to people judging me; it's a breath of fresh air. I guess it's because it takes a fellow loner to understand that. 

 

Lady I'm judging everyone constantly 24-7. I know it's a figure of speech but... My anus is very anal for that sort of thing.

As it so happens I intend on becoming a hermit once I've married and raised my future children. Perhaps more literally than figuratively since I like the idea of living in a cozy place in a secluded area spending the rest of my life with my wife and grand kids, while also proselytizing my ideals, playing video games, and banging my aging wife to the grave. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

15 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I start out using a passive voice because a woman is set upon a path when she is a child. She is basically just surviving on the environment she is born into. I’m thinking that childhood experiences are critically important, and a person’a childhood has a inextricable effect on the person they grow up to be. 

I think, for women, the hangup happens because they are biologically primed to have kids around age 18. They basically go from parents to having kids (in evolutionary past) with little to no time in between. Further, women are deeply afraid of breakin from their social circles. Like, deeply deeply afraid, and it’s quite difficult to gain insightful knowledge when you’re emotionally hard-wired to believe and think what the family says. There is a reason that women were treated like larger children in the past. I do think that if a woman is better than that she will act like it and prove it. But there is a strong biological history of a woman basically going from her family of origin to her husband, and then immediately having kids. There is no time in there to unlearn bad behaviors and relearn new ones. Not before she has already had children.

 

I don’t think it’s false. Women really don’t have much time between childhood and prime reproductive abilities. That’s why a woman’s SMV typically peaks and then declines after age 25. And by saying that sometimes it’s too late, I meant that it would be too late for her to have her family. After age 35 a woman is reproducing on prayers and wishes.i also don’t think I’m belittling women. I don’t see an insult to women, or a judgment on women, or any negative interjection about women. I’m trying to argue that these are the reasons why a woman would not grow or learn. I’m just trying to give an account for what really happens and why it happens. I’m not giving an end judgement or taking away the possibility of free agency. 

And as for me - my actions were as predictable as a clock. It wasn’t until I totally separated myself from my family and all their trappings that I started to even think for myself and get a handle on what was happening. And even then, it wasn’t until my husband refused to enable some of my behaviors that I really faced them. I don’t think I had seen an accurate Murrow of myself until then. So maybe I’m just projecting my own issues into the female gender at large. That’s a possibility. 

I know I'm not the only one who said it, but I think men have a similarly short timeframe if they want a shot at the best.

If a man doesn't really become an active producer by 25-30, he'll have to marry down in order to marry with a chance at children (i.e. if I'm 30 and just then making middle class income, I can't marry another 30 year old unless 1 child is all my impotent phallus can be bothered to cough out. On the other hand a 20 year old would be far more fertile but much less experienced and wise).  Meanwhile if a man's not marriageable by 35+ he's basically either going to marry a gold digger, a washed up hand me down, or some other undersirable type of woman. My reasoning being the best women seek the best men; and the best men have their act together ASAP and have gotten all the Self-knowledge necessary ASAP as well, therefore as a man approaches 30 he has to recognize he'll have to marry down if he wants children (because same-aged women who are of similar or superior quality are already mothers).

And by "down" I mean both in age and in quality. Personally I hate people that are stupid and irrational. I have little patience for someone that "doesn't get it" or "doesn't want to get it". Therefore I know if I want to marry Ayn Rand's family friendly reincarnation I have to really be as great a man as I can be as quickly as possible. Otherwise I have to compromise on one of the following things; similar age, intelligence, wisdom, virtue, attractiveness, etc. 

Since I hate compromises (where no one wins) I have extra-incentive to be the best man I can be. I doubt it's far different for women. I'd rather marry an older woman than a younger one simply because I value intelligence and wisdom very highly (though naturally if a woman is so smart and wise why is SHE marrying down? Of course there's a whole lot of variables I'm not accounting for here but this is just a Platonic hypothetical realm thing). 

That being said your history and musings on womanliness and who it's like to be a modern woman sure are interesting if a bit sadly predictable. I mean, I'd like to have a positive opinion of the majority of women but your insight proves that most women, like most men, suck and suck hard. I mean I'm sure there are plenty of men who don't mind a woman who can't think for herself (probably because most men can't think for themselves), but I am definitely not one of them. If I am doing something stupid I want to be challenged. If what I am doing can be done better, I want to be educated. If I'm doing it right, I want to be respectfully left alone to do it (or supported practically, even if just emotionally for my confidence). 

In short I want a woman who can fulfill the "partner" part of being a wife as well as a woman who is loyal, good, and motherly. A big ask but I'm young and willing to deliver equally big since I have the opportunity to do so-- so long as I make the right decisions, work smart, and be fruitful, of course.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

I have to admit, I'm not a literal hermit, just sort of one. (I did say semi-hermit.) I don't live in the mountains or the middle of nowhere; I actually live in a twin city area in an apartment, and I go out two to three times a week on average. I work from home, and I like to read, write, take naps, and hang with my cat.

So are you a fiction author then?

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

I'm rather flattered that you wanted to know a bit about how I live because I so used to people judging me; it's a breath of fresh air. I guess it's because it takes a fellow loner to understand that. 

A little, but mostly because I'm actually interested in being a hermit. Although have to find a reliable means of subsisting. Cliche but my ideal place would be a desert Island somewhere, as long as I didn't starve to death or die of thirst. Wouldn't mind taking the rough with the smooth, even if it involved being near eaten alive by insects. 

Currently looking at walking to Gibraltar in Spain, from Almeria, camping out on the way, could take a while....

[S1988]

27 minutes ago, RichardY said:

So are you a fiction author then?

Somewhat, but I just do it as a hobby. I also write some nonfiction and poetry.

[RichardY]

10 minutes ago, S1988 said:

Somewhat, but I just do it as a hobby. I also write some nonfiction and poetry.

Probably a good hobby to have, in the past I was pretty hooked on videogames. What sort of non-fiction do you write? Don't really read much poetry, the only one that comes to mind is "The Hollow Men" in the movie Apocalypse Now, but not exactly a girly movie.

[S1988]

45 minutes ago, RichardY said:

What sort of non-fiction do you write?

Commentary and how-to/advice

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

Commentary and how-to/advice

Did I upset you, when you said you were flattered and I said "a little", more interested in being a hermit? I know once, when I was at a Wedding for a 2nd  cousin at London Zoo, I was asked if the food was Ok by the Bride and Groom, and I said "no not really", too many beans, square plates and a silly drizzle decoration. I wonder if I should try more to feign social conformity.  

Women are generally more reliant on social approval, I remember Milo saying that women later in life living alone are generally miserable. Also I think Stefan has said that accoding to the data. 

[S1988]

49 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Did I upset you, when you said you were flattered and I said "a little", more interested in being a hermit?

No, not at all.

[Elizbaeth]

9 hours ago, S1988 said:

Somewhat, but I just do it as a hobby. I also write some nonfiction and poetry.

I used to write - before the kids. What do you write? I have a serious love for poetry. 

[Elizbaeth]

@Dr. Dealgood

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I actually agree with most of it. 

I suppose the only difference is that I do think there are many good things that are worth saving. The way I see it, either men save civilization or we’re going to devolve into a pretty nasty, ape-like dystopia run by feminist commies. 

I appeal to men - as opposed to shaming them - because the only solution I see is people getting back into their scripted gender roles because I do think men are the ones who created all the great ideals and freedoms and inventions. 

You want women to solve things on their own... they are. They currently are solving things on their own. The product of that is modern feminism. Women’s solutions are bringing down the whole ship. 

No, I’m not going to tell my sons not to marry. I’m not that pessimistic about the future. I do see a billion dangers, though, and so hope to teach them to be extremely cautious. But as of yet I see no reason why I should tell them that humanity, women, and their own genetic line are better off not continuing. If they ever want kids, marriage is the only way to go about it. 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

9 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

@Dr. Dealgood

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I actually agree with most of it. 

I suppose the only difference is that I do think there are many good things that are worth saving. The way I see it, either men save civilization or we’re going to devolve into a pretty nasty, ape-like dystopia run by feminist commies. 

I appeal to men - as opposed to shaming them - because the only solution I see is people getting back into their scripted gender roles because I do think men are the ones who created all the great ideals and freedoms and inventions. 

You want women to solve things on their own... they are. They currently are solving things on their own. The product of that is modern feminism. Women’s solutions are bringing down the whole ship. 

No, I’m not going to tell my sons not to marry. I’m not that pessimistic about the future. I do see a billion dangers, though, and so hope to teach them to be extremely cautious. But as of yet I see no reason why I should tell them that humanity, women, and their own genetic line are better off not continuing. If they ever want kids, marriage is the only way to go about it. 

 

I'd add, optimistically, chances are if things get really bad a few men will be forced to step in and do something about it. I hate to sound deterministic but it's inevitable for gender roles to return. The question is whether it'll be peaceful movie-style or violent WWII style. Or something in between, like a generation-by-generation gradual shift as good couples seize power from bad couples (i.e. trads beating thots) simply by being more productive and probably politically as well. Though the latter will probably have to involve more than just rabble-rousing and more cultural-war victories. I assume that which is demonstrated to cause the most happiness will inevitably become the most attractive and therefore slowly aquire people over time. Like I'm sure there's more trad-youth than trad-age-25+ -ers, even though I'm also sure they're a minority, simply because generations tend to revolt against the prior ones when they're unhappy and usually do what they perceive as the opposite of the prior one. 

[S1988]

42 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

I used to write - before the kids. What do you write? I have a serious love for poetry. 

I write stories, acrostics, commentary, and how-to/advice.

[Dr. Dealgood]

@Elizbaeth

There is a great many things on this planet worth saving, most unrelated to humanity. Mother nature can be rather ruthless when the mood takes her.  I feel sorry for all the species about to go extinct. The non-human ones will share the fate of humanity through no fault of their own.

Your appeal to men is misplaced. You should be appealing to women. You are the gatekeepers and your gender kicked the ant hill. My last prediction... constant demonization, marginalization and discrimination will only lead to more alienation. Combine that with opportunities being closed and men kicked to the bottom of society in increasing numbers. Now throw in an economic melt down. Those conditions have one logical conclusion.  Revolution.

Feminism is an ideology held by a minority pushing their agenda. The problem here isn't convincing men that their rights are being trampled. If you want to make a difference align yourself with like-minded folks who are pushing back against feminism.  And don't tell men they need to be angry and become heroes.  That is staggeringly bad advice.  Angry men are routinely shot. The whole security apparatus of the state is set up to shoot angry men.  When groups of angry men get together they call that an insurgency and it invites a drone strike.

Do not expect the red pill community to go out of their way for you.  I will not be flying my X-Wing into the Deathstar to save anyone.  I will however, give you the keys and you can do it.

It's been fun chatting.  Peace.

[S1988]

On 1/18/2018 at 9:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Lady I'm judging everyone constantly 24-7.

Well, it's true that most of us judge others. I do, too, but I'm quieter about it since I adhere to a live-and-let-live philosophy. What I was talking about was people who are overtly judgmental to the point that they stick their noses in my life and try to tell me how to live because it's not "normal," something I had to deal with most of my life. And, the interesting thing is that they wouldn't want to be treated in such a way, but I guess since I'm a quiet person, I'm "supposed" to take anything people dish at me. After all, I don't go to a group of people in public and tell them not to be so social. Why should I adopt an extrovert's way of living? I'm not hurting anyone. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. I was treated this way by family members, school staff, and even people who barely know me. Makes me wonder since I'm so boring and quiet, why do they want to be around me in the first place? If you're going to look down on me, at least do it with integrity.

 

 

[Elizbaeth]

@barn

I think I was wrong for even trying to argue in the first place. Or, if I had still wanted to speak my point, it would have been better if I had said my claim contained reasons why most women repeat the cycle into which they are born. Nothing more or less. 

That being said, I still hold my mostly deterministic view. I think humanity is capable of great things, but the large majority of people are pretty uninspired and unreflecting and just live on autopilot. I don’t know too many women who have the desire to examine themselves even if they have the capacity. I actually do think that most women only merit the medieval women-as-children treatment. Not saying I want to live that way, but I see why it happened. 

I’m not sure why you’re so eager to get me to say that I’m trying to escape blame or agency by putting forth my views. Why would I have mentioned any of my shortcomings or brought myself into conversation, or even started trying to really untangle and see myself at all if I only wanted to make up an excuse? Yeah, I suppose it’s possible that I’m really just that blind to my own motives. I don’t think it is, but maybe I’m just so far gone that I can’t trust my own reasonings anymore.

On 1/18/2018 at 9:34 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

That being said your history and musings on womanliness and who it's like to be a modern woman sure are interesting if a bit sadly predictable. I mean, I'd like to have a positive opinion of the majority of women but your insight proves that most women, like most men, suck and suck hard. I mean I'm sure there are plenty of men who don't mind a woman who can't think for herself (probably because most men can't think for themselves),

Sorry dude. I do have a low opinion of most women. I have met a few who I think are truly beautiful creatures, but the rest... I sort of feel like they are dumb cows. Men, too. I think humanity is capable of such gr at things - I get very frustrated at the fact that not too many people around me seem to even want to try to strive for something better. They just want Netflix.

 I want to like women more. I deeply want more close female relationships. And who am I to talk? I have just about all the “tyipical” female personality traits, and feel like I am very female in my thinking, so I want that female companionship, but I find it really hard to make connections with other women in a way that feels true and substantial. 

You seem like a very smart guy. I think the odds are in your favor. 

On 1/18/2018 at 8:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

'd add, optimistically, chances are if things get really bad a few men will be forced to step in and do something about it. I hate to sound deterministic but it's inevitable for gender roles to return.

My husband thinks this. He says he was born the way he is and other masculine men are just born that way and there’s no way a masculine man will accept a slave’s existence without a fight. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

@barn

I think I was wrong for even trying to argue in the first place. Or, if I had still wanted to speak my point, it would have been better if I had said my claim contained reasons why most women repeat the cycle into which they are born. Nothing more or less. 

That being said, I still hold my mostly deterministic view. I think humanity is capable of great things, but the large majority of people are pretty uninspired and unreflecting and just live on autopilot. I don’t know too many women who have the desire to examine themselves even if they have the capacity. I actually do think that most women only merit the medieval women-as-children treatment. Not saying I want to live that way, but I see why it happened. 

I’m not sure why you’re so eager to get me to say that I’m trying to escape blame or agency by putting forth my views. Why would I have mentioned any of my shortcomings or brought myself into conversation, or even started trying to really untangle and see myself at all if I only wanted to make up an excuse? Yeah, I suppose it’s possible that I’m really just that blind to my own motives. I don’t think it is, but maybe I’m just so far gone that I can’t trust my own reasonings anymore.

I think the lesson he's trying to tell you is that if you accept the premise that most women lack agency then you'd start, at least subconsciously, to rob agency from yourself, your future daughters-in-law, and any future daughters you might have.

Choosing to do nothing and/or live in the moment is still a choice. I had a rough background and could, if I was so inclined, repeat the Millennials (apparently I'm too young to be one--I'm "Generation Z"!) and check out on living life to the fullest. Instead I strive to actually be someone I'd respect enough to open the door for, salute, and perhaps best of all be the guy I'd shine the shoes of. I mean, as a man, I dig the idea of being so great that other men become like children to me! 

Quote

Sorry dude. I do have a low opinion of most women. I have met a few who I think are truly beautiful creatures, but the rest... I sort of feel like they are dumb cows. Men, too. I think humanity is capable of such gr at things - I get very frustrated at the fact that not too many people around me seem to even want to try to strive for something better. They just want Netflix.

I take away the frustration by disconnecting from them (as much as practically possible) and focusing on the 20% that are statistically responsible for 80% of the good in the world and strive to be worthy of the top 1 or decimal point percent. 

Quote

 I want to like women more. I deeply want more close female relationships. And who am I to talk? I have just about all the “tyipical” female personality traits, and feel like I am very female in my thinking, so I want that female companionship, but I find it really hard to make connections with other women in a way that feels true and substantial. 

Same for me with most guys. I might like the same video games as John or have the same beliefs as Johan or the same disposition as Jonathan, but if they don't have that "inner voice" or "self-control" that makes them exceptional and potentially great people, I just lose interest.

As a man I think it's a lot easier for me to be a hermit. Fundamentally all I care about, as far as people go, is finding a wife, impregnating her until her plumbing breaks, and raising the wonderful children so that they can outdo me in every way conceivable. My wildest dream is to be the grandfather of the American Emperor, whether that be literally or figuratively, I do have the biggest dreams for my descendants and want to facilitate any and all kinds of meritorious and virtuous success they may be inclined to grow in.

Quote

You seem like a very smart guy. I think the odds are in your favor. 

So long as I put in the work and use my mind, I am confident in my success. The key is actually doing it, and I think my biggest weakness is hesitation and fear of failure. However I know the cure to these things is experience and the confidence that comes from having actually done something worth bragging about.

Quote

My husband thinks this. He says he was born the way he is and other masculine men are just born that way and there’s no way a masculine man will accept a slave’s existence without a fight. 

Yep. When I was younger (and far less wise) I thought I was born in the wrong time period. I thought I ought to be riding horses and commanding lesser men to battle and conquering the world. Or at least a small part of it, and defending it from barbarians. While I'm sure my environment played a role in this fantastical urge, I think biology is also a factor. I have always seen the "greatest version of myself" as a self-made nobleman with a wife, a few mistresses, and a dozen or so children with a massive palace and almost in spite of it all a level of self-discipline and wisdom to rival the most dedicated of monks and scholars. 

Now I don't actually expect to become a nobleman or be so great a man multiple women of similar quality would effectively marry me nor do I expect to be able to raise a dozen or so children let alone afford a palace and simultaneously the time to study history and become like a philosopher-king of sorts. I do however think I can become a very successful patriarch and family man. And that's satisfying enough an outcome for me, and I'd like to remembered after death as a "benevolent patriarch" and a "wiseman". 

My point about what I said some paragraphs up though is that I find myself far happier when I don't dwell on the little people and instead think about (and pursue) the big people: the people who live to their fullest potential as human beings and inspire others to do the same. The men that make me want to be more of a man, and the women that make me feel a greater desire to persevere if only for the sake of claiming such a woman. Studying history has always been an inspiration in this way. Even if history before the last century isn't 100% accurate it doesn't mean there weren't great heroes, champions, and villains to be conquered. 

In fact two interesting women are the mother and wife of the Genghis Khan, as they played a huge role in raising/assisting him in a time of seemingly endless strife and ethnic wars. Of course we all know the ending of the story, but it can be easily argued the goal that Temujin (Genghis's real name) fought for (world peace through unification and a massive inheritance for his children) was successful and there is some slack I think he deserves when one considers the world he grew up in and how cutthroat it was in the barbarous lands of the steppes and declining empires (particularly the Jin-Chinese one). 

 

[barn]

@Elizbaeth

That's ok.

I can see where this is not going, and that's fine too. (no curiosity imo)

All the best,

Barnsley

(p.s.  I do mean, all the best.)