Are women capable of agency?

[Fashus Maximus]

On 12/20/2017 at 4:22 PM, smarterthanone said:

its terrifying for them to face responsibility.

Exactly my point, women respond to responsibility and death threats in the exact same way.

On 12/20/2017 at 4:22 PM, smarterthanone said:

1. Ask where she wants to go out to eat.

2. Tell her where she wants to go out to eat.

See which works better.

Option 3: Tell her what she wants to eat, when and where. Most of the time, the response for me is "oh? ok then, see you!"

[barn]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:18 PM, S1988 said:

I guess my response was more towards being fed up with being pushed around most of my life, mainly by those who claim to care about me but act otherwise and then wonder why I don't call or visit. 

Like I said earlier, I spend a lot of time alone; therefore, I do a lot for myself, and I find unsolicited help a real nuisance, especially from "allies" who want to stick their noses in my life and attempt to "fix" things that don't need fixing.

 

What would you say (Sorry if me jumping in, unannounced is a bit unexpected) is a good way to 'separate the wheat from the chaff' and also, another additional question if you don't mind me asking... once the intent received a 'clear', how would you distinguish from projection vs. applicable and relevant?

ie. 'friends' coming to save/prevent the unwanted... [received clear]... then, what they are bringing is for them/for you?

Barnsley

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:44 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself.

Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things?

EDIT: My central argument is that "They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things."

The misc calls this female logic. 

Self ownership is lacking esp in the day and age whereby, women are promoted for skiing down cawk mountain, cratering SMV, and then clinging to daddy government to raise her bastard kids from diff men. 

[Fashus Maximus]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:14 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Same can be said of 99% of men.

Your 99% figure implies that responsibility avoidance is also a feature of male behavior; however, with responsibility comes control / power and - for men - more power is a higher smv. So how can men be responsibility avoidant - as a core feature - when it is so sexually beneficial to them?

On 12/20/2017 at 11:14 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

What is your standard for "agency"?

Agency is the capacity to act in a given environment, according to Wikipedia; feel free to disagree with this definition but that is what I'm referring to (whatever you want to call it).

The whole point of death threats is to remove your capacity to act independently. That's why morality cannot apply when being coerced; you cannot own your actions in this situation.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 12/18/2017 at 9:59 AM, Fashus Maximus said:

What you're describing was the norm in all K-selected history until a foreign ethnic group released its communist intellectuals upon us. Until that point, the lack of agency in women was assumed.

So, would you say that the historical evidence supports my thesis?

I would say your hypothesis is legitimate and worth further investigation.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Your 99% figure implies that responsibility avoidance is also a feature of male behavior; however, with responsibility comes control / power and - for men - more power is a higher smv. So how can men be responsibility avoidant - as a core feature - when it is so sexually beneficial to them?

Generally speaking all humans are advantage-seekers seeking as much as they can get for as little as possible. Men are far more likely than women to break the cycle and become leaders in society but most men are followers of most women and most women are followers of their parents who followed their parents and so on and so forth.

Mothers raise the boys and girls to be as they are and adult women select what they want in men who attempt to emulate what they think women want. A whole lot of agency is occurring here because they're making choices both as singles and as parents. 

2 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Agency is the capacity to act in a given environment, according to Wikipedia; feel free to disagree with this definition but that is what I'm referring to (whatever you want to call it).

Okay. In which case everyone has agency because we have at least two options at all times: Do X, and don't do X.

2 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

The whole point of death threats is to remove your capacity to act independently. That's why morality cannot apply when being coerced; you cannot own your actions in this situation.

Yes you can. I own shooting the guy pointing a gun at me. I'm absolved because it's self-defense but I made the choice. Morality is not the same thing as agency. Agency is by the above definition my ability to make choices in a given situation (or even more simply--make choices). 

I refuse to give bad women what they want (the benefits of being an adult without the consequences and responsibilities) and refuse to excuse bad women and evil people in general for their behavior by ascribing it to mental deficiency or insanity. 

Otherwise wouldn't Stalin be excusable because he was beat horribly as a child and raised in a very cutthroat society? Doesn't this logically conclude that our environments is all we are and only a select few can raise above our environments and by extension preside over us?

Although not many break the cycle and revolt, nothing but tyranny results from letting bad people be treated as mentally challenged while holding good people to an absurdly high standard. Determinism is Cancer. 

You may not intend what I am saying, but inevitably if women have no agency (except maybe a few) because they're emotionally reactive than most men can similarly be absolved of responsibility and therefore only high quality people can be held accountable for anything and those high quality people will not rule but rather be ruled and exploited. 

Either everyone has agency (to some level) or no one does. Obviously a baby hasn't the agency of an adult but after a few years of mental growth (i.e. becoming closer to a mentally matured human) children become able to reason and therefore earn a beginner's level of agency that grows over time. Once we're fully mature (i.e. 18+) we are all equally responsible for our actions regardless of circumstances. 

[S1988]

On 12/23/2017 at 12:21 PM, barn said:

What would you say (Sorry if me jumping in, unannounced is a bit unexpected) is a good way to 'separate the wheat from the chaff' and also, another additional question if you don't mind me asking... once the intent received a 'clear', how would you distinguish from projection vs. applicable and relevant?

ie. 'friends' coming to save/prevent the unwanted... [received clear]... then, what they are bringing is for them/for you?

Barnsley

If I were in a bind of some sort and I wanted assistance, I prefer it from someone with pure intentions, not someone with an ulterior motive, which is a hallmark of so-called allies/friends. I guess the only exception in this situation would be if I just met someone because I wouldn't know their true colors until much later. 

[meetjoeblack]

15 minutes ago, S1988 said:

If I were in a bind of some sort and I wanted assistance, I prefer it from someone with pure intentions, not someone with an ulterior motive, which is a hallmark of so-called allies/friends. I guess the only exception in this situation would be if I just met someone because I wouldn't know their true colors until much later. 

This is what the problem with now a days. A woman was complaining about losing her resources. About what if she got divorced? Its like, this is an issue now but, when it comes to dudes, when it comes to male imperatives, it is a nonissue but, women and victimhood, the world bends over and takes it in the pooper. I notice its something that needs to change. I don't see traditionalism coming back though, I could see a wave of it sort of mutate. Anyway, a classic example is a woman skiing down cawk mountain. Going through tons of dudes cratering her SMV, Then, its baby rabies kicking off. Its biological clock time. Men are now suppose to give a damn because she is stupid. It has nothing to do with me. It is not my problem. If she is not proper, she simple doesn't get a call back. She can be some other cucks problem. 

[barn]

2 hours ago, S1988 said:

If I were in a bind of some sort and I wanted assistance, I prefer it from someone with pure intentions, not someone with an ulterior motive, which is a hallmark of so-called allies/friends. I guess the only exception in this situation would be if I just met someone because I wouldn't know their true colors until much later. 

Hi,

Yes, sure of course. Nobody feels great getting aid from unknown individuals with undefined motives. I was into the 'how' to define those intentions...

ie. - I can trust more an unknown individual if there's a stated monetary gain involved or an expectation of a clearly stated reciprocal favour request. - Would these fall under your 'pure' category?

Barnsley

[S1988]

7 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi,

Yes, sure of course. Nobody feels great getting aid from unknown individuals with undefined motives. I was into the 'how' to define those intentions...

ie. - I can trust more an unknown individual if there's a stated monetary gain involved or an expectation of a clearly stated reciprocal favour request. - Would these fall under your 'pure' category?

Barnsley

Yes.

[barn]

23 minutes ago, S1988 said:

Yes.

I see.

[RichardY]

The term "Pure" was used as a euphemism in the tanning industry to refer to something less than "Pure" i.e Shit. Just thought I'd throw that in there, kind of random. 

[meetjoeblack]

I probably mentioned it before but, I will do so again.

SOME PEOPLE ARE SAVAGE. 

A woman interrupted my workout with my buddy and I. Why? To brag about cucking her husband, the man that married her, gave her children (assuming, they are both his which may not be the case). She then went onto talk shit about another friend of mine. Of course, she says, "I would never date him." She wouldn't chase playboy yet, cucks her beta husband. 

#IDon'tWantToLiveOnThisPlanetAnymore!

Its seeing this shit time and time again be it IRL, online or cold approach. Another woman was going on about fear of divorce and losing her place. Of course, this shit has been going on for the past 60yrs for men but, its only a problem when it impacts women. 

Gentlemen, I came here to find a solution but, for the life of me, I don't know. I think MGTOW is right but, I prefer Deida's approach; purpose & living at one's edge. Currently, I am reading "The rational male." Despite the pedaling of "patriarchy," we live in a matriarchy society. Its placating to female biological imperatives. Its social conditioning. Its the allocation of male jobs, resources, and children to the women. Its SMV top form allocated towards sociopaths, psychos, alphas, playboys, bad boys. Fallback is cratered SMV aimed at beta male cuck provider.

Its an outrageous stat for divorce and even worse 80% of which is initiated by women (shocker). Its a scary world gents. IMHO, I think youth is the key, top form SMV, and red pilling the shit out of the woman. If she is not a free thinker #NEXTSET!

 

 

[Elizbaeth]

On 12/17/2017 at 8:49 PM, Wuzzums said:

Lol. 

 

On 12/20/2017 at 4:22 PM, smarterthanone said:

Women have so much anxiety and depression and stuff because they DON'T WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS BUT ARE FORCED TO DO SO.

I would instead say that women often make many decisions, but what they care about is generally much different than what men care about. 

 

On 12/18/2017 at 6:33 AM, RichardY said:

Women were not allowed to vote for reasons, that are all now too apparent. In Greece I heard that female children weren't generally spoken of, bit like the muslims trying for sons all the time. Even Ayn Rand said she found the idea that women being politicians or business leaders some what grotesque, though I guess there are the exceptions.

I do agree with this. There are always outliers, but I think that most women don't truly care about politics. I mean, most women I know care about politics in a vague, general way, but not to the degree where they will do diligent research and make careful choices. I've been legally able to vote in 3 presidential elections, but haven't, because  when push came to shove, I didn't feel like I knew enough to make a good choice. I had read and listened to the news on all 3 elections and had "gut" decisions on who I preferred, but if I had had to defend my choice in a debate, I doubt I could have done so. I simply spend most of my energy dealing with other things to be totally knowledgeable about such large-scale webs of global politics. It's not that I don't think they are important - I do - but most of my world is made up of the internal landscapes of those I'm most intimate with, and I spend a ton of energy learning them, navigating their inner territories and even guiding their emotions and thoughts. I think I'm a very opinionated person, but more often that not I fall into the "support" role, and find that I am very good at it. I don't think this makes me stupid or diminishes my depth or intellect, although it often feels as though others see it that way. I think that most women - even if they are hard-core feminists - still operate like this on a very fundamental level, which is not at all suited for politics at a larger scale. 

 

On 12/17/2017 at 8:44 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself.

Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things?

EDIT: My central argument is that "They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things."

I would say that this is true in a lot of ways. I will go to extremes to avoid having conflict in my personal relationships, and often (and too often it's long after the fact) realize that I was simply re-acting in a way which I had somehow learned instead of actually choosing. However, I think that it's a mistake to take agency away from women. We are not addle-brained half-humans, and make many important decisions all the time, one of the most important being who is going to be a good bet. Men figure out things, women figure out men. It has to be this way. I would have argued otherwise when I was younger, but after having kids I see all too clearly that I was no exception, and that having kids sort of forced that psychology onto me. Without children I am just as free as a man to go out to make things/get things/conquer things, but with children I am tied, fairly incapable of doing much more than simple house tasks, and utterly dependent on my husband to take care of me so that I can take care of them. If I were to want my own independence, it would come at a cost to my kids. Even working from home would be negative for them, because I would not be available to respond to them in the way that they need. I could do it, yes, but it is not good for them. So once a women has kids, she's more or less a prisoner of sorts to her man's resources. She can only escape at serious costs to her children. So this means that a women is best equipped if she 1) chooses the right man, and b) she adapts to suit whatever man she is with. If you can't change it, join it.

So yes, of course, women are fully human beings who can and do have moral agency and choice, but I think there is such a big difference in risk-cost scenarios for men and women that choices between the sexes look very different, and we each have very different psychologies which have adapted to help us cope.  

[meetjoeblack]

On 24/12/2017 at 11:38 AM, Fashus Maximus said:

Your 99% figure implies that responsibility avoidance is also a feature of male behavior; however, with responsibility comes control / power and - for men - more power is a higher smv. So how can men be responsibility avoidant - as a core feature - when it is so sexually beneficial to them?

Agency is the capacity to act in a given environment, according to Wikipedia; feel free to disagree with this definition but that is what I'm referring to (whatever you want to call it).

The whole point of death threats is to remove your capacity to act independently. That's why morality cannot apply when being coerced; you cannot own your actions in this situation.

Free thinking goes a long way. I can say, there just is a lack in western women now a days. Men are on the blunt end of women and their poor decisions that lead to their own unhappiness. I've attempted to mitigate the chaos and decimation of the nuclear family having been the product of strong family values. At this point, I feely embrace what is to come but, I refuse to carry the weight or play white knight when shit goes tits up. The fallout is coming. When it does, a lot of men are going to be switched off outside their families, wife, friends, etc.

Morality cannot apply to being coerced however, the abundance of social engineering, the promo for sloot gonna sloot, single mother victim, and the get out of jail free card for women is still no excuse. Women can be bought, are bought either in the form of playboy or by daddy government. We live in a matriarchy that pedals to women;s every whim, and women are still discontent.

Tyler Durden : We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

The question a lot of free thinking men need to ask themselves is, what to do with their life having not followed the beaten path?

[Elizbaeth]

13 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

I've attempted to mitigate the chaos and decimation of the nuclear family having been the product of strong family values. At this point, I feely embrace what is to come but, I refuse to carry the weight or play white knight when shit goes tits up. The fallout is coming. When it does, a lot of men are going to be switched off outside their families, wife, friends, etc.

I am sorry for you and the situation that you and most men are in. It's pretty bleak. 

I think, however, that the only chance society has of being saved lies with men getting angry, refusing to abandon ship, and fighting as men to be men out of some last vestiges of heroism and love for themselves and for civilization and freedom. I also realize that there's not really much incentive for this to happen. But I do think, that unless this happens, the fallout is inevitable and our world will just be one giant China/N Korea of censorship and doom. 

[Dr. Dealgood]

@Elizabeth

"I think, however, that the only chance society has of being saved lies with men getting angry, refusing to abandon ship, and fighting as men to be men out of some last vestiges of heroism and love for themselves and for civilization and freedom. "

Men aren't allowed to cry. We learn that as children from our mothers.
Men learn they are disposable as teenagers. The state teaches us that when it compels us to fight it's wars.
Men aren't allowed to use the wrong tone of voice around women. We learn that as adults from HR.
Men aren't allowed to be critical of women. We learn that from our wives.
Men can expect no justice from a legal system that is set up to only punish men. We learn that in divorce court.
Morality is a uniquely male construct. We learn that when we try to project it on women and they reject it.

Now tell me why men should refuse to abandon ship?  If the "ship" is a metaphor for society it's not one that I cherish. It treats me rather badly actually. Heroically save it?? LOL. No quite the opposite I think.

Time for a female "heroine" to step up and save society. Men have sacrificed enough.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/8/2018 at 10:18 AM, Elizbaeth said:

I am sorry for you and the situation that you and most men are in. It's pretty bleak. 

I think, however, that the only chance society has of being saved lies with men getting angry, refusing to abandon ship, and fighting as men to be men out of some last vestiges of heroism and love for themselves and for civilization and freedom. I also realize that there's not really much incentive for this to happen. But I do think, that unless this happens, the fallout is inevitable and our world will just be one giant China/N Korea of censorship and doom. 

I have a better idea; we men need to go Galt (i.e. focus on ourselves and not settling for bad women--not exactly going Galt so much as making better choices but I'll call it "going Galt" anyway) then take over society by allowable means once it reaches the crisis point and use the past as our "Never Again" moment to reshape the government and legal system.

You know Russia learned from the Soviet Union. America can learn from itself too. 

I'd rather tunnel in and wait for the current society to collapse so I can join the good guys in remaking society as current society simply isn't worth fighting for let alone dying for.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

4 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

Now tell me why men should refuse to abandon ship?  If the "ship" is a metaphor for society it's not one that I cherish. It treats me rather badly actually. Heroically save it?? LOL. No quite the opposite I think.

Because of balls.

I agree with Elizabeth.

[Elizbaeth]

20 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

Men aren't allowed to cry. We learn that as children from our mothers.
Men learn they are disposable as teenagers. The state teaches us that when it compels us to fight it's wars.
Men aren't allowed to use the wrong tone of voice around women. We learn that as adults from HR.
Men aren't allowed to be critical of women. We learn that from our wives.
Men can expect no justice from a legal system that is set up to only punish men. We learn that in divorce court.
Morality is a uniquely male construct. We learn that when we try to project it on women and they reject it.

Now tell me why men should refuse to abandon ship?  If the "ship" is a metaphor for society it's not one that I cherish. It treats me rather badly actually. Heroically save it?? LOL. No quite the opposite I think.

Time for a female "heroine" to step up and save society. Men have sacrificed enough.

Men have not been treated well, and have often been downright abused. Men have all the right to be angry, and to be hurt and whatever else you might actually feel. 

I didn't say that men should like to save civilization. I didn't say that it was fair or just for men to save civilization. I do, however, think that men are the only ones capable of saving civilization. I believe there are women who feel strongly for civilization, and who care deeply, but unless she is the outlier and the exception, she simply doesn't have the emotional and mental tools available at her disposal to actually be the hero that civilization needs. A woman can never be a man. She can lose her feminine qualities and be a not-woman, but she won't be a man. 

We need men to be heroic and brave. Not saying they have anything worthwhile to be brave and heroic about. Civilization and society has been very cruel towards men. 

I'm just saying I don't see how civilization will be saved without men taking charge and saving it. 

[barn]

20 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

Men have not been treated well, and have often been downright abused. Men have all the right to be angry, and to be hurt and whatever else you might actually feel. 

I didn't say that men should like to save civilization. I didn't say that it was fair or just for men to save civilization. I do, however, think that men are the only ones capable of saving civilization. I believe there are women who feel strongly for civilization, and who care deeply, but unless she is the outlier and the exception, she simply doesn't have the emotional and mental tools available at her disposal to actually be the hero that civilization needs. A woman can never be a man. She can lose her feminine qualities and be a not-woman, but she won't be a man. 

We need men to be heroic and brave. Not saying they have anything worthwhile to be brave and heroic about. Civilization and society has been very cruel towards men. 

I'm just saying I don't see how civilization will be saved without men taking charge and saving it. 

There's got to be a point when 'women' come to their senses and start returning to the main competitor of the state... the unity of family.

I want that.

[Elizbaeth]

@barn I have no idea what the majority of women will want concerning families in the future. I see three types of women: 1) those who are raised conservatively and easily step into the role of mother/wife, 2) those who want families, but are raised to have no skills to take care of families or attract a decent man, and 3) those who think men are the devil and children and lichens to suck away their freedom. 

I would guess that most women now fall into the second catagory - they like the idea of family, but are brought up in such a way that they really are bad choices for mothers and wives. It's sad, really. If they had known certain things when they were younger, or had had a support system to help them, they might have been excellent wives/mothers. But women get trashed pretty quickly from the hookup/party lifestyle, and have only a few short years to figure things out. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

36 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

@barn I have no idea what the majority of women will want concerning families in the future. I see three types of women: 1) those who are raised conservatively and easily step into the role of mother/wife, 2) those who want families, but are raised to have no skills to take care of families or attract a decent man, and 3) those who think men are the devil and children and lichens to suck away their freedom. 

I would guess that most women now fall into the second catagory - they like the idea of family, but are brought up in such a way that they really are bad choices for mothers and wives. It's sad, really. If they had known certain things when they were younger, or had had a support system to help them, they might have been excellent wives/mothers. But women get trashed pretty quickly from the hookup/party lifestyle, and have only a few short years to figure things out. 

This applies to men as well, though replace mothering/wifering skills with fatherly/worker/masculinity skills. 

I'm a pretty rare exception nowadays to be both concerned for my future as well as actively looking to build myself up as both a man and as a worker so I can both attract the fine family friendly fertile females and also have a yearly net income that let's me live in a nice Midwestern suburb (because city life is crap unless maybe if it's a fun city but my experience and wants don't really match city life=fun. 

While as men we're more concerned with female behavior and wants than male (since males generally follow females), it's not totally one-sided and we have some work to do as well. Statistically there ARE decent women out there. Decent men just need to set up a beacon to attract them (either metaphorically by being a good man, making good friends, and therefore finding good sisters/daughters/friends--or literally by being an internet hero like Stefpai or Mike Cernovich) and together provide a visible example to younger people to change course.

[barn]

1 hour ago, Elizbaeth said:

@barn I have no idea what the majority of women will want concerning families in the future. I see three types of women: 1) those who are raised conservatively and easily step into the role of mother/wife, 2) those who want families, but are raised to have no skills to take care of families or attract a decent man, and 3) those who think men are the devil and children and lichens to suck away their freedom. 

I would guess that most women now fall into the second catagory - they like the idea of family, but are brought up in such a way that they really are bad choices for mothers and wives. It's sad, really. If they had known certain things when they were younger, or had had a support system to help them, they might have been excellent wives/mothers. But women get trashed pretty quickly from the hookup/party lifestyle, and have only a few short years to figure things out. 

If we overlook what free choice is, sure. People fall for things that are detrimental, no agency present. The story will play out one way, or the other.

If however, we allocate free choice and hold others to the same standard... a very clear demarcation line can be drawn between those who got exposed to better ideas but chose to ignore them and those who at least did their best (first step, calling things by their proper name) hence whatever circumstantial build-up. I'm not saying it is easy (for everyone) or that it's possible (for everyone) but I'm saying it's the only one that's opposite to 'continual sliding down' (regardless the pace).

I see all the 3 categories, as you put them(very interesting btw), how they are set up, deterministic. Therefore I am certain, that your starting point is misguided.

Edited January 16, 2018 by barn
typo (a big one :-)

[S1988]

@Elizbaeth

The three points you made are a bit too clear-cut for me. I don't desire a family, but it's not because I hate men and kids; it's just not appropriate for me. (A semi-hermit loner lifestyle and a family doesn't mix.)

It's also because I'm still dealing with problems as a result of my background, and I feel that I should just focus on being my own parent. After all, sometimes it's better for one to not have kids than to bring them into the world and not be able to raise them properly. 

[Elizbaeth]

3 hours ago, barn said:

see all the 3 categories, as you put them(very interesting btw), how they are set up, deterministic. Therefore I am certain, that your starting point is misguided.

I think it is deterministic in a sense. 

Hear me out. A woman can certainly choose, and often a woman with a very bad upbringing chooses something different; however, a woman has a fairly short biological time frame within which she can start a family. If she has been set out on a bad path from an early age, she has more she has to undo and figure out and set straight before she can be a truly good candidate for a Mom/Wife. She can either have children when biology demands (mind 20’s) or she can wait until she has her head on straight and has all of her stuff together and then find a a man who has done the same. If she started on a very bad path, this could take a loonnnggg time. She could very possibly not be able to have kids by the time she becomes “suitable.” A woman who is raised in a bad family is usually part of the hookup culture and probably hasn’t seen any good relationship patterns in her life. She probably wishes for the perfect relationship but has all the traits that destroy relationships. Relationship-destroying traits have been actually been heavil reinforced in them. They can, and many do, climb out of this, but the short time frame of women’s reproductive capacity puts an urgency to them knowing what is wrong with them, their family of origin, and how that fits into larger social patterns and politics. That’s a tall order, and if a woman graduates from college at the usual age, then she’s basically starting at tremendous negative at age 22, and her peak SMV is only about 3 years away. The average man who graduates from college at age 22 has, what, 10, 20 years to learn proper self-knowledge and figure things out before settling down for a family. I tend to think most single moms fall into this category, btw. 

So, in the end, people do have the will and choice to choose, 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. Sometimes it’s too late, even if she does learn and realize what is needed.

[Dr. Dealgood]

@Elizbaeth

" I do, however, think that men are the only ones capable of saving civilization"

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

What is with your fixation on "heroism"? The source of male grievance is the discrimination against males promoted by women.   You want your precious civilization saved then perhaps you should focus on another word... try "justice". It's one both genders can believe in.

Your other fixation is on "civilization".  I think you mean to say society.  If you want men to give a crap about society that's easy... society has to give a crap about them. Don't ask us to support a system which is grossly unjust and unfair to us.

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. What makes you comfortable has made me a slave. All your post comes across like your whining for a man to do for you what you are unwilling to do for yourself. Pure nausea to those of us in TRP community.

[RichardY]

"DEMARCATION!!! DEMARCATION!!!" - "Cross of Iron."

Thought of the word from the movie "Cross of Iron" 1977.

Some male to female relations in the film. Guy get's his penis bit off. Another guy gets stabbed to death "possibly" thinking about rape. Perhaps kind of random, thought it was a good movie. Generally the people who are exposed to "better ideas", end up getting killed, anyway.

[barn]

Hi @Elizbaeth

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I think it is deterministic in a sense. 

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.)

consequences DOES NOT equal determinism. A human being isn't analogous to a lifeless rock, one's sentient.

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Hear me out. A woman can certainly choose, and often a woman with a very bad upbringing chooses something different; however, a woman has a fairly short biological time frame within which she can start a family.

Not every woman's choice echoes her upbringing, thankfully or not. (It's important to know why's that, because that is the gist of basically everything I have ever written to you, what I'm fleshing out here too.) I know you said 'often' but just wanted to lay down first that correlation isn't proof.

Biological tick-tack... absolutely, they should be (some are) more careful, responsible, mindful therefore. It's the opportunity cost. No second chances. Nev-a!

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

If she has been set out on a bad path from an early age,...

(This and expressions such as these ruffle my feathers. And I'm not angry at you or anything... of course not. )

Set out on a bad path... (too bad, you're doomed from the get go. <- fallacy)

Well, kids have not been able to do as they pleased throughout the history of humanity but that equation certainly gets redrawn once a child can & have the opportunity to start an independent life. (The first time you realised, the living spaces in this universe aren't cleaning themselves, there's a correlation with bills and electricity usage, leftover money... oh, the fun stuff of being an independent adult living separately )

From that point on, I don't think anyone with a working moral compass would place the onus on anyone else but the individual who's now every bit as able to act coercion free, make COM-PLETELY new and different decision compared to what his/her parents did/didn't. (mind you, I am conscious of the biggest coercive power is the state but in 'life decisions' it's still just the individual who chooses something AND NOT the other... consequences acrew,i. e. think long and hard before you invest especially if you don't have much money but even then you can mess up due to lack of _insert skills here_)

I also am fully conscious how strongly incentives matter, while it is a fact that no matter how good an idea seems like THERE'S STILL ACTION REQUIRED for it to manifest. Otherwise "[..], beggars would ride".

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

she has more she has to undo and figure out and set straight before she can be a truly good candidate for a Mom/Wife.

It's fair to say (and I believe) that context matters a great deal. It's also true that the person who's been accumulating bad habits have a harder time 'getting through to the desired/stated clearing'.

Therefore (demonstrable too, is that) such 'explorers finding themselves in the jungle of bad prior decisions' will reach for rather a flamethrower than a pocket knife to make way. People with immense conundrums can and do make relative 'quick' recovery investing proportionately in their healing, demonstrating the sternest dedication to turning things around and happily willing to pay each and every cent the price tag implies. (Think of the many dozens of calls where people described the lengths they were willing to go to, in order for recovery... and the many other hundreds with see-through rationalisations, explaining away so they wouldn't have to move a finger.) (I'm not implying anything here)

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

She could very possibly not be able to have kids by the time she becomes “suitable.”

I know this sounds heartless and cold, but 'so what'?

I don't mind not seeing a mechanic when my car's broken down and the first fella I bump into has no idea how to fix cars but wears the uniform. Should I take pity on him/her and risk spending a fortune on wasting my time? (sorry for the rhetorical)

At the same time, if the said mechanic could guarantee a no negative scenario and demonstrated that he's willing to become a better tradesman, I might just give him/her a try. I would even tip him/her if the reparation was a success for being honest and trying hard. (but it depends on my circumstances a lot)

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

She probably wishes for the perfect relationship but has all the traits that destroy relationships.

People who don't pro-actively work on themselves besides also looking for alternatives to try out, hardly ever find upgrades, usually(99.9%) cement themselves in 'photocopy reproduction'. Got it.

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

That’s a tall order, and if a woman graduates from college at the usual age, then she’s basically starting at tremendous negative at age 22, and her peak SMV is only about 3 years away. The average man who graduates from college at age 22 has, what, 10, 20 years to learn proper self-knowledge and figure things out before settling down for a family. I tend to think most single moms fall into this category, btw. 

Oh, yes. Certainly that must be true for a slice of the population. Seemingly.

However, I would distance myself from an incomplete perspective like that for my own sake.

The whole thing starts at a much earlier age, the moment we can and do evaluate our reality consciously; start listening to our inner self; integrate our needs/wants with what we experience and make comparisons (with friends, tv-book-game characters, grandparents,.. etc.) .

It's merely an anecdote but I knew from age 7, I was never going to be like my parents(couldn't explain but knew). So in a way, did I have a headstart on finding the major red-pill that sped things up and prevented my demise, compared to the 22yr old ladies?

I don't think so. It's not 22, but those who start later have a longer way to make, they should turn on the 'after-booster' if they want to catch up. Or not if that's too much of an effort. Meaning they're essentially not willing to come to terms with reality. It's personal preferences, free choice and I respect people's choices the like I do with my own elections.

11 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

So, in the end, people do have the will and choice to choose, 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. Sometimes it’s too late, even if she does learn and realize what is needed.

It's hard, of course. No arguments there. Not surprising, It doesn't work out for everyone, that's a fact too. It's a stark reminder of the concept 'pay me now or pay me later, but you will pay!'.

Yet, there's no other way if they claim to seek virtue, not just wishful thinking. A person who's broken his leg will probably never run as fast had he not had it injured but his degree of recovery is closely related to the effort he's willing to make in doing therapy, exercising. No- shortcuts, no- reduction in price, no- skipping any part... ultimately, and what perhaps might get me in trouble for saying, no excuses but consequences.

Barnsley

p. s. The whole thing goes for men too and I am no exception either. It is what it is. The sooner people accept reality, the earlier they can start acting better... or not. Some people choose conformity and die a slow emotional death, spreading sorrow and misery in their wake. Making sure to strangle every doubt they encounter so that they don't have to be reminded of the inevitable hell they are consciously creating in their lives. (Good) philosophy can make you see that but can't do no more.

Edited January 17, 2018 by barn
some grrrmr

[Elizbaeth]

@barn I don’t think we’re necessarily in disagreement. I think that ultimately we agree on the fact that every action has its consequence and every person is, in the end, accountable for their actions. 

I was only arguing that women have a much shorter time frame because of their biological roles in which to solve some of life’s pressing problems. 

[barn]

Hi @Elizbaeth

Fantastic. So you don't believe in deterministic, pre-drawn life-paths anymore, neither that bad parenting overturns free choice for life.

Furthermore you mean under 'shorter time-frame' for women is in the context of, in comparison with men whom are at a disadvantage from the get-go(no eggs, male disposability)?

i. e. trying to convince a person to buy your product, competing with hundreds of salesperson simultaneously vs. receiving a huge amount of calls with all sorts offers but you only have a limited amount of time to make up your mind

And here you implied that the salesperson had an easier time or greater chance for success?

 

[Elizbaeth]

@barn I’m really sorry. I’m struggling to get a crisp idea of what you’re saying. I think it’s that English isn’t your first language. I have a general idea of what you mean, but I’m afraid the exact idea/line of thinking is lost to me.

I thought we were more or less in agreement, but after your last statement I am not so sure. My stance, very simply put, is that people are set out on paths in life. This is not an iron-clad life sentence, but given the female reproductive timeline (and the personality traits that go with it), chances are she must be extraordinarily intelligent and intuitive to realize something is wrong and then fix whatever is wrong within her reproductive time frame. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be accountable. I’m saying it is very unlikely for a woman to start from the path which she was set on. Unlikely and improbable. 

Let me try to mull over what you’ve said and see if I can get closer to what you meant.

By by the way, what is your first language?  

[Elizbaeth]

23 hours ago, S1988 said:

 

@Elizbaeth

The three points you made are a bit too clear-cut for me. I don't desire a family, but it's not because I hate men and kids; it's just not appropriate for me. (A semi-hermit loner lifestyle and a family doesn't mix.)

It's also because I'm still dealing with problems as a result of my background, and I feel that I should just focus on being my own parent. After all, sometimes it's better for one to not have kids than to bring them into the world and not be able to raise them properly.

 

Hello! @S1988 Am I speaking with a lady? 

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?

[Elizbaeth]

14 hours ago, RichardY said:

 

"DEMARCATION!!! DEMARCATION!!!" - "Cross of Iron."

Thought of the word from the movie "Cross of Iron" 1977.

Some male to female relations in the film. Guy get's his penis bit off. Another guy gets stabbed to death "possibly" thinking about rape. Perhaps kind of random, thought it was a good movie. Generally the people who are exposed to "better ideas", end up getting killed, anyway

 

Lol. Your posts are always interesting. 

[barn]

Hi (again) @Elizbaeth

3 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

I’m really sorry. I’m struggling to get a crisp idea of what you’re saying. I think it’s that English isn’t your first language. I have a general idea of what you mean, but I’m afraid the exact idea/line of thinking is lost to me.

That's ok, misunderstandings can be resolved by asking for clarification, leveling. If desired.

So far I haven't seen any questions or implied ones...anyhow, feel free to ask, if you want to or feel the need to do so. (I'd be glad to help but same here, don't know what's unclear)

I'll reiterate some of the previous quotes, in hopes it'll clarify things, given what's your most recent reply

On 01/16/2018 at 9:57 PM, Elizbaeth said:

I see three types of women: 1) those who are raised conservatively and easily step into the role of mother/wife, 2) those who want families, but are raised to have no skills to take care of families or attract a decent man, and 3) those who think men are the devil and children and lichens to suck away their freedom. 

(notice, how the first two categories involve women in passivity, while the third is completely misguided.)

On 01/16/2018 at 9:57 PM, Elizbaeth said:

 

On 01/16/2018 at 11:16 PM, barn said:

I see all the 3 categories, as you put them(very interesting btw), how they are set up, deterministic. Therefore I am certain, that your starting point is misguided.

then

20 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

I think it is deterministic in a sense. 

[...]If she has been set out on a bad path from an early age, she

(passivity)

10 hours ago, barn said:

Set out on a bad path... (too bad, you're doomed from the get go. <- fallacy)

 

10 hours ago, barn said:

20 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

She could very possibly not be able to have kids by the time she becomes “suitable.”

I know this sounds heartless and cold, but 'so what'?

I don't mind not seeing a mechanic when my car's broken down and the first fella I bump into has no idea how to fix cars but wears the uniform. Should I take pity on him/her and risk spending a fortune on wasting my time? (sorry for the rhetorical)

At the same time, if the said mechanic could guarantee a no negative scenario and demonstrated that he's willing to become a better tradesman, I might just give him/her a try. I would even tip him/her if the reparation was a success for being honest and trying hard. (but it depends on my circumstances a lot)

and

10 hours ago, barn said:

20 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

She probably wishes for the perfect relationship but has all the traits that destroy relationships.

People who don't pro-actively work on themselves besides also looking for alternatives to try out, hardly ever find upgrades, usually(99.9%) cement themselves in 'photocopy reproduction'. Got it.

but somehow women have a harder time, according to you

20 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

That’s a tall order, and if a woman graduates from college at the usual age, then she’s basically starting at tremendous negative at age 22, and her peak SMV is only about 3 years away. The average man who graduates from college at age 22 has, what, 10, 20 years to learn proper self-knowledge and figure things out before settling down for a family. I tend to think most single moms fall into this category, btw. 

I ask, why didn't they start earlier? They could have!

20 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?).

{2} - This is what missed opportunity means. Sad but true, unchangeable.