Once you understand the nature of the fire ant colony you can provoke them in relative safety. The fierce response to any disturbance of the mound is entirely predictable. The ants simply have no choice in the matter. Poke the mound and they come storming out, furiously stinging and attempting to restore the mound to its previous shape.
You can witness the same thing whenever discussing issues which offend the feminine imperative. Much of what we do in the manosphere is knock down the false frame of feminism. In fact, we generally need to focus more on the frame than the facts because the facts are indisputably on our side. However, even when the focus is on the facts, the response from the feminine imperative is the same; out boil the ants to rebuild the frame.
In the discussion of my post A Tale of Two Beaches, commenter T provided an excellent example of this. She immediately set out to rebuild the frame of Sheila’s Now Hear This post (the picture alone says it all). I’ve excerpted several comments below so you will need to see the original discussion for full context, but the excerpts show T’s constant reframing of the discussion to the idea that compliance is sexy, and the corollary; husbands who don’t comply are repulsive losers who ultimately risk frivorce. Note that each segment separated by ‘…’ is from a separate comment. This isn’t a series of excerpts from just one or a few comments. To her credit, T held on to the compliance is sexy frame through to her final comment in the discussion:
So are the things that Shelia Gregorie mentions in her post unreasonable?
…
I saw most of that list as things that husbands should be doing anyway. So the problem is that she doesn’t say that even if he doesn’t bother with any of that, then she should still have sex.
…
Having to do this causes vaginal dryness. Just FYI.
…
But a wife whose husband doesn’t do most of those things actually isn’t going to be happy. Although I agree that she shouldn’t withhold sex no matter how she feels, a husband who doesn’t do some of those things is a turnoff.
…
Having to explain what you want to someone who is sexually incompetent (and a man who can’t find a clit and doesn’t know what it is for is incompetent ) is not sexy.
…
However I do think that a husband who doesn’t do the stuff that she listed is likely to actually turn his wife off.
…
Not turning her off and being a good husband?
…
I think that whether they are valid prerequisites to ungrudging sex is irrelevant for practical purposes. Most women won’t be able to have enthusiastic sex with a husband who is lacking in many of these areas. You can tell her that her prerequisites are invalid and she will tell you that you’ve turned her off. She may grab some lube and fake it for you if she believes that she owes that to you, but it isn’t going to get you a mutually satisfying sex life.
…
Sex is not just physical for some women, it’s emotional as well. Before I developed some emotional control if my feelings were hurt, or I wasn’t feeling loved at the moment I didn’t want sex and couldn’t enjoy it if I had it anyway.
…
I have told friends that there is no reason to deny sex and that their marriages will probably improve if they are sexually generous with their husbands. That doesn’t change the fact that sex can be difficult for women to enjoy when they aren’t feeling good about their relationship.
…
This is exactly the reason that many women “frivorce”. They look at their husbands, see someone who creates more housework than he does, doesn’t meet her emotional needs and wants sex while not being sexy. If she’s already going to work and dropping her kids off at daycare then he is also redundant.
The problem for men is that we tend to respond to fairly obvious reframes as if they were an attempt at a logical argument. It isn’t that responding to these reframes is never a good idea, but that you should always be aware of what is going on. Either way, in this case T’s problem was the framing of the OP was overwhelming. No amount of petty shaming would change the fact that no woman reading would want to associate her sexuality with Field Marshal Gregoire (left) instead of Mrs. Yes (right).
Which kind of wife are you?
One thing which is worth noting is that when the ants are rebuilding the mound they generally aren’t aware of what they are doing. Women absolutely can argue logically, but certain topics have a tendency to bring out a little known module of the rationalization hamster, the emotion to logic converter. When this module is engaged what comes out is structured in the form of a logical argument, but it is really just emotion in translation.
Private beach image licensed as creative commons by Jarrod Trainque. Standing Guard image licensed as creative commons by the German Federal Archive.
Ah, yes. I was watching Ms. T make a case on SSM’s post today that if a woman wanted a “quickie” with a towel while she lay there and thought of England until it was over, she was entitled to her requests. Marital repercussions be damned. Cold sex, cold marriage? Who said that. Obviously they didn’t know about how women get in bad moods which ruin their tingles!
The logical reversal made me laugh. “I’m not attracted to my husband because I’m in a bad mood.” No, you’re in a bad mood because you’re not attracted to your husband. You should probably do something about that. Welcome him. Follow him. Make him the captain of your ship. Unroll the welcome mat. Don’t just lie there like a limp fish. Participate. Be part of the event. Come to the marriage bed.
T’s on my site, too, leaving pearls of wisdom like this:
If your husband can’t make you orgasm buy a vibrator or get a new husband.
Not sure about the whole feminine imperative thing, but she definitely has a lot of feminist talking points that she uses to reframe or derail conversations.
And furthermore, that graphic at the top of the post is going to haunt my nightmares tonight. o_0
It’s always fun to poke a girl’s mound.
Never saw any fire ants come out though.
lzozlzozlzolzozl
“When this module is engaged what comes out is structured in the form of a logical argument, but it is really just emotion in translation.”
It’s no different than packing fecal matter into a jello mold. Sure, it may look like dessert…
The ‘Cyphers‘ of the manosphere seem to act the same way; just as emotional, irrational, and furious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_the_Matrix_series#Cypher.2FMr._Reagan
This, and the more specific post linked to about reframing is extremely helpful. It’s something I hadn’t really understood until that post but made instant sense. Logical people are inclined to respond with logic, using facts as a basis, and it’s difficult to realize that facts simply go right through your opponent’s head without any impact. It makes me frustrated and tending to just give up and stop trying to discuss anything with people who don’t compute, but that doesn’t help much either. Your explanation regarding the reframe completely clicks and made a lot of practical and useful sense, and comes in handy for remembering to consider what kind of dispute is actually at hand (one about facts vs. about frame).
Thank you! Completely aside from general Men’s Rights, this sort of thing makes it easier to go through life in dealing with women.
“Women absolutely can argue logically, but certain topics have a tendency to bring out a little known module of the rationalization hamster, the emotion to logic converter. When this module is engaged what comes out is structured in the form of a logical argument, but it is really just emotion in translation.”
I don’t quite agree with this though. *Some* women can argue logically. the ability to reason using logic can be bell-curved like anything else. The women at the atypical-for-women end can reason just fine, and the ones just behind them are capable of it, but more susceptible to being swayed into an emotional argument instead.
But all evidence I’ve seen suggests that a vast majority of women (and a minority of men) really truly *can’t* argue logically. The ability to process logic and make/understand an argument based on facts simply isn’t an ability everyone has. I’ve started to understand people better due to realizing that logic is an aptitude simply not universally present.
(While I think better education in the area of informal logic could help some with the people capable but not adept at reasoning, I think there are a number of people for whom it’s simply beyond their grasp. Consider the reasoning abilities in the 80mph video recently posted..)
It’s always fun to poke a girl’s mound.
Never saw any fire ants come out though.
Ugh. That puts a whole new light on the fire ant picture.
Maybe Dalrock should have used THAT, plus a constrasting photo of the real thing, for his “What kind of arey you?” comparison…
man boobz for Christians?
Sheesh!
Trying to reason with a woman is like trying to eat soup with a fork. It only feeds the troll.
LOL Dalrock I am beginning to think that you are sweet on me. This is the second time that you have used my words in your blog post.
I resent being compared to fire ants, but you quoted me and offered links to context so I guess I can’t complain.
@Dalrock
On T: I called it a long time ago.
The questions I’m mulling over are: How much effort should we put into killing the fire ants? If I don’t kill them, but successfully chase them to my neighbors yard, do I have a responsibility? On the one hand, it’s not my business anymore, technically. On the other is I don’t want them to come back, and my neighbors don’t even mow their lawn! They call it edenic.
My biggest issue with T beyond her constant, incessant attempts to reframe, is that she “tries too hard”.
I just saw a promo for the new season of Survivor last night and some blond contestant ruins it by opening her mouth. She says stuff like “I always have an opinion on everything and I’ll let you know it” and “there’s always two ways of doing things: my way and the wrong way”. A feminist hears that and can immediately identify and does an internal “you go, girl!” primarily because she can see herself saying the same thing.
Put those same words in the mouth of a man and women would not be so enthusiastic to endorse. A man would not want hear it from anyone, male or female–and wouldn’t dream of such ever crossing his lips. Anyone who speaks like that is aping the male mentality, and it shows.
A woman should never attempt to mimic a man, because it never originates from the same place that it does in a man. And it shows, except not for the speaker, of course.
It comes across as “trying too hard”. We see the wizard behind the curtain, in addition to the hamster on the wheel.
T: You wouldn’t happen to be an attention addict, would you?
@Martian:
“Trying to reason with a woman is like trying to eat soup with a fork.”
But i can be SOOOO much fun. Last night my exgf was commenting about a movie she was watching… long story short, we fell into a bit of a rabbit hole and before you know it, 90 minute long text-a-thon where she’s attempting to school me on banking, taxes, and history.
[Not happening!]
I repeatedly shot down every single point she made, and wasn’t shy about letting her know I was laughing my ass off about it – a fact that INFURIATED her. It was like playing twister with a Tasmanian devil on acid.
She was freaking out left and right trying desperately to re-frame and pitch me into some kind of corner from which I could not escape… but it ended up being her that got trapped, at which point she said “THAT’S IT! I’M DONE! I’M SO DONE WITH YOU! YOU MANIPULATE AND TWIST EVERYTHING SO IT FITS YOUR VERSION OF THE TRUTH!!! DON’T CALL OR TEXT ME ANYMORE!”
To which I replied, “PROJECTION: you’re doing it right. LOL”
“don’t be such a sore loser, this is what happens when you poke the bear. Plus, you LOVE to hate on me, I’m just giving you what you want and need babe!
Hey…. I might stop by with a surprise tomorrow.. I’m going to bed. gnight…”
her: “NO! NO SURPRISES!! I’M DONE!”
me: “I’ll see how I feel though…..”
*note: she is absolutely crazy. I knew she was just furious and I’d hear from her today (and I did) …. when we first got together a few years ago I was the biggest beta schlump you could ever imagine – it’s been WAY more fun since we broke up and I started “treating her the way I should have from the start”… banging the mound, indeed! Now she can’t get enough of me but it’s all on my terms LOL
/diatribe
SSM – And furthermore, that graphic at the top of the post is going to haunt my nightmares tonight. o_0
Lie back and think of England.
@UP
I think I saw what you did there. If I didn’t, then allow me to express my admiration, in A. Bierce’s sense of the word.
“I resent being compared to fire ants, but you quoted me and offered links to context so I guess I can’t complain.”
Trust me, the comparison is accurate. They aren’t really useful for anything. They can cause loads of harm. You can’t permanently kill them, just beat them back until next season.
“The problem for men is that we tend to respond to fairly obvious reframes as if they were an attempt at a logical argument. ”
Guilty I thought she genuinely wanted to understand something. Boy was I wrong.
T has been and is a great training aid. Kai is another that has benefitted from the exaple put into live practice. And T gets to be the center of attention and can take credit for destroying the feminie imperative.
@ JoJ – Trust me, the comparison is accurate. They aren’t really useful for anything. They can cause loads of harm. You can’t permanently kill them, just beat them back until next season.
Just mean. And all this time I thought you really cared. *sniff*
I quit the manosphere. Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I guess I’ll go eat worms. (Fire ants eat worms, right?)
@TFH
“T simply has no idea how women think.”
That’s why I refer to her as Mr. T.
“I quit the manosphere. Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I guess I’ll go eat worms. (Fire ants eat worms, right?)”
If only it were true.
If only it were true.
She very well might, JoJ. But that doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more holy hamsters of Churchianity and scholars of the Book of Oprah out there who will find these fringes of teh Interwebz and find themselves drawn in to the discussions.
They’re a dime a dozen in today’s Brave New World Order!
T basically implies that she’s too cool for school, and therefore, everyone here is less cool than her… and who cares about this right and wrong and true and false stuff when what really matters is being cool?
What T neglects is that this is the internet. Nobody is cool on the internet. It is place for high frequency trading, cat pics, and dry logic. Cool does not factor into it. Being cool on the internet is like competing in the special olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded.
Dalrock’s equanimous posting career is a huge service to anyone who wants to understand the truth about gender relations. T’s impotent ripostes are an education in why one should not try to be cool on the internet.
Mr T has got to be emotionally aroused good or bad depending on psychological state by all of this attention. Dalrock, Mrs. Dalrock has got to be tingling over your ability to fire up some ass like that with ever laying eye or hand on it.
Outstanding job of illustrating a vulnerability good men have when in red pill discussinons. Your strength in this was letting her speak and derail discussions and your ability to see comments in response and actually quantifiy what you see. You can actually put your finger on things many people know and feel but just can’t quite get there. The strength of character to allow your article comments to be deraiedl temporarily rather than on more amerature blogs that delete decent has allowed you to become extremely powerful along with anybody that observes and participate. I call it the teacher style of leadership.
I have waded through Mrs Gregoire’s advice concerning how to procreate, and I must say, that her boner-killing advice would have me running for the exit were I Mr Gregoire. Taking advice from a woman as to how to have sex is a little like taking advice from the tone deaf as to how to write music. A recent post from Krauser PUA advises – and I think quite correctly – that what matters in sex is the man’s sexual desires, and that placating a woman’s alleged desires is going to lead to an unsatisfactory encounter for both parties. Certainly, before I ever knew what a clitoris was (and I am sure I have never seen one) I was at least so far as I can tell more than capable of sexually satisfying any woman of my choice – and I have written-testimonial that I am to Sex as David Beckham is to Free Kicks – or is it, as I suspect, that that is what every woman says in the blissful aftermath of copulation?
T is to the on-line community which is this blog what Rebecca Watson aka Skepchick aka Elevator-Diva is to the New Atheists. In Ts case she is Thread-Diva and seeks to vie with Mrs Gregoire for the position of Uber-Fuhrer of sexual-technique and like Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger will mark you down for ever minor infringement of the alleged rules. As with Elevator-Diva (a plain divorced thirty-something woman whose intelligence is inverse proprtion to her opinion of herself) she seeks to take centre-stage. It will surely not be long before T is demanding the installation of new curtains, and the punishment of males who show her less than full-respect.
Now you must excuse me as I need to recalibrate the emotion-to-logic convertor on my Hamsterlator (always wondered what it was for).
It pretends to speak for all women,implying,as ususal :”No pussy for you unless you see it ‘the gals’ way..”
When in fact the gals simply do what rewards them most,regardless of logic.
Thus men set the frame with what they reward,(she)
tries to reverse that as the FI running the show,and never question the Great OZ woman behind the curtain.
“Well you guys are just bitter.”
No,sweetie,we just like to think for ourselves,you feminists have done enough thinking for the last 50 years,and we suffer the result,now we’re Taking Ground Back.
It’s OURS and we’re TAKING IT.
Why don’t you at least pick a worthy opposing view so you can better refine your support for the FI?
http://ladyicantexplain.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/feminine-imperative-revisited-the-unabridged-version/
“emotion to logic converter”
Dalrock, i love you man.
“Emotion to logic converter” deserves addition to the Manosphere hall of fame
Out of curiosity I wonder how wives would feel if her husband said “I’m not feeling emotionally well about our relationship so I’m going to stop going to work for a while”
From the perspective of Christian morality, I find T’s statement more problematic than Heartiste’s version of game. The assumption that a man exists to push a woman’s sexual buttons or should be replaced is common and repulsive.
@ SSM
Dalrock’s graphic above accurately explains how men feel differently about women with the demeanors he describes.
Ceer- Plus we all know what happens when men suggest wives should forego that 2nd slice of cheesecake to make sure she can please her husband
Sorry about the pun thing, Dalrock, I just couldn’t help it.
Anyway, I have seen this “rebuilding the mound” thing quite a bit. I recall discussions with the (ex)wife where she would make assertions that were absurd and so easily debunked that she would have to reach back into the past to drag stuff up because she just couldn’t come to grips with that fact that we were living a fairy tale and she was the only one discontent. She couldn’t allow me to shatter her world of lies and circular ‘logic’.
When I deconstructed her BS well enough, she would result to gaslighting in order to maintain her position. It worked, at the time, because I never thought someone would use such a tactic- deliberately lying and telling me I said things that I *know* I did not say, etc. just to confuse me, and the point, and to throw misdirection so we are talking about MY shortcomings, not hers.
Not once, in our ten years, did she ever concede a point. Not. Once.
Her mound is now a fortress, fortified with madness and baked goods.
@ CL
It’s hopeless to try refute the FI, hun, save your breath. They’ve already voted on it and it’s part of the catechism now. If you’re like me, you want to keep reading in this corner of the web because there is so much to learn around here. Therefore, I suggest you follow my advice: just insert the words “quack quack” whenever you get to the words feminine imperative and keep reading. Trust me, the article will make just as much sense. Try it and see.
@Cane
“I think I saw what you did there”
I am without guile, but I think I get your inference. Sometimes I am that good, but I don’t think this is one of those times. So, yes, you admire me in the sense that you were intending to fall back on. It is often mutual–even to the point of starting a second blog largely inspired by your guest post here.
Emotion to logic converter (single girl): “I’m ashamed of being a slut and would die of embarrassment if he ever knew. He’s so much more moral compared to me, it makes me want to run away and hide.” —–>(converts to)—–> “He’s just not my type. I’m just not attracted to him. He’s so creepy, I just want to get away from him.”
“However, even when the focus is on the facts, the response from the feminine imperative is the same; out boil the ants to rebuild the frame.”
Does this sentence have a different meaning if it read: “ However, even when the focus is on the facts, the response from feminism is the same; out boil the ants to rebuild the frame.“
Y’all knew that I wasn’t actually going right?
Emotion to logic converter (single girl): “I’m ashamed of being a slut and would die of embarrassment if he ever knew. He’s so much more moral compared to me, it makes me want to run away and hide.” —–>(converts to)—–> “He’s just not my type. I’m just not attracted to him. He’s so creepy, I just want to get away from him.”
Nope. I’m sorry but this is wishful thinking on your part. She means that you are creepy, unattractive and not her type.
Therefore, I suggest you follow my advice: just insert the words “quack quack” whenever you get to the words feminine imperative and keep reading. Trust me, the article will make just as much sense. Try it and see.
LOL. It’s true.
It’s true that you’re a cruel, evil and femcunt bitch T. Why are you here, what do you get out of it? Is it the tingles? Do you not have a husband or vibrator for that? You add nothing to anything, you’re vapid, a self-absorbed entitled bitch with nothing of substance coming from your brain. You spew garbage, you’re nothing, that’s why you’re here. On the inside you know you’re worthless, your life is pointless. You come here to make other peoples’ lives pointless because you’re a cruel, heartless crone.
Just call her out, she sounds much the same as DH. I wouldn’t be surprised really. Same cognitive dissonance emanates from her mindless drivel. Her purpose serves only to enlighten men as to what awaits them if they marry such a cunt. Be warned.
@T
“she means your creepy, unattractive, and not her type”
I didn’t say that the hypothetical girl doesn’t “mean it”, I said that she is unaware why she feels that way. She feels that she wants to run away, but since she is the princess, it must have something to do with him.
It’s true that you’re a cruel, evil and femcunt bitch T.
Hi again FH. You seem to hate me, yet cannot resist responding to my posts here and elsewhere.
I didn’t say that to be cruel. Cruelty would be letting someone wander around believing that their morality scared off women when it is something else. For the purposes of attraction morality is a neutral. If a woman finds him creepy it is his appearance and/or his social skills that are off putting to her.
If a woman told you that her “strength and independence” was putting off men would you tell her that it was probably her weight and her bad attitude that was the problem or would you let her have her delusions? Letting people cling to life ruining delusions is cruel. Telling them the truth about things that they can control is a kindness. You’re welcome.
@ T
Bah, you agreeing with me on the FI makes me want to put on my Feminine Imperative cheerleading outfit and do a half-time routine in support of the concept.
Bah, you agreeing with me on the FI makes me want to put on my Feminine Imperative cheerleading outfit and do a half-time routine in support of the concept.
You aren’t alone. I’ve noticed this kind of logic throughout the manosphere. They decide that X poster is bad and so if poster X agrees I will disagree or find some minor point to quibble with. They do this even if they wholeheartedly agreed with the same point when it was made by another poster.
T says:
“Nope. I’m sorry but this is wishful thinking on your part. She means that you are creepy, unattractive and not her type.”
As has been stated in other places, “Consider the source.” That she’s got female bits doesn’t automagically make her a good judge on what’s “creepy” or “unattractive”.
Sometimes I think we give women too much credit wrt their ability to judge such things.
T says: February 9, 2013 at 10:44 am
“If a woman finds him creepy it is his appearance and/or his social skills that are off putting to her.”
I note that you’re making this all about him, and not at all about her judgement, or lack thereof. How many “good, nice betas” have been called names like this, not because they’re actually “creepy” but because they swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – the false doctrine that being a “nice guy” would get the girl and lead to a family and a happily ever after?
No T, first of all, if she was really serious about trying to find the issues rather than just saying “men can’t take my independence” men here would help her realise her problem. You just say it’s because he’s creepy and ugly and don’t provide anything to help him at all. That’s cruel and heartless. What if he is ugly, what do you suggest he do? Our suggestion would be that he improves himself and becomes attractive, whether that means going to the gym, shaving his hair off or improving his skills of interaction or even overcoming his fears of approaching women.
You just want to keep him in his beta box, tell him that there’s nothing he can do but accept his station in life and not improve himself. As stated before, you’re a cruel and heartless bitch.
I despise what you are T, I despise the way you mock those people who don’t agree with your supposed plan. The reason I think SSM hates you agreeing with her over her disagreement of the FI, is that your constant mockery and shaming actually leads to ‘lightbulb’ moment that there’s something to the FI theory after all.
Your entire diatribes consists of telling someone they’re wrong, saying you’re right, then saying there’s nothing they can do about it anyway, so ‘deal with it’ and then you mock and shame. You add nothing of value here. I can understand a disagreement, but once you disagree with what a blog stands for, you say your piece and leave. Else you’re merely being a troll.
@ SSM: Heheh, I know the feeling. A bit like this?
T’s thing is that she does the reframing very well – she is unshakeable. And any time she’s called on the carpet, the regurgitates enough manosphere memes to seem like she’s “paying attention” and “really learning.” Of course, the attitude of such posts is strikingly cavalier – it very much seems that she does not believe or accept what she’s staying, but she knows it to be a manosphere article of faith, so there you have it.
Oh, and with regards to the feminine imperative… I’m sorry if this derails, but I’m not sure I’ve seen it mentioned before… Wouldn’t the Christian take on the FI be Gen. 3-16,
To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” (-NIV, BibleGateway.com)
This strikes me as a short hand way of expressing a lot of what is wrapped up in the FI. They don’t overlap EXACTLY, but it does indicate that women’s sin nature is different from men’s sin nature, and expresses itself in different ways: thus, the FI versus the MI. Of course, the MI isn’t really addressed as such, but is visible in the PUA response to the current social clime. (Not trying to pass judgement on the MI as better or worse than the FI, just the difference in male and female inherent sin nature.)
Sorry for getting off track, but this idea occurred to me a while back, but too late for the original discussion…. And I was hoping for some insight, whether or not I am on the right, or even plausible track.
The men here know either through empathy or by experience what it is like to be married to woman such as yourself, T. They know they are laughed at by other men. They know that your husband repeatedly fails your shit tests. That he is manipulated by you. They cringe because they have no respect for him and they know what it feels like to not be respect-worthy (whether your husband has woken up to it or not). You humiliate your husband at the city gate. Even if you may know how to wipe your own ass correctly, no one wants to be remotely associated with vile women such as yourself.
@ FH: T does provide a benefit: she is a clear object lesson, one Dalrock, in his wisdom, has made excellent use of. Just as a debate can help both party’s develop their ideas and conclusions more thoroughly, having T here helps us females to see that there really is something to some of the manosphere ideas we are less accepting of, and likewise provides some of the men with a “practice ground” to see the concepts Dalrock has used T to illustrate: for example, the logical reframe of an argument. Not that she is pleasant to have around persay, just, she does serve a purpose, though certainly not one she intends.
pg, the problem though with having evil come lurk within your walls is that its evil seeps in and destroys all you’ve worked for. T might serve useful to illustrate a concept but she’s done that now and it’s best to let her go. Keep a snake for too long and don’t blame the snake when you get bitten.
FH, good point. I hadn’t looked at it that way.
Your entire diatribes consists of telling someone they’re wrong, saying you’re right, then saying there’s nothing they can do about it anyway, so ‘deal with it’ and then you mock and shame.
Anytime I point out that something that someone in the manosphere says doesn’t make sense they either call it a reframe or me being mean. *shrug*
Nonsense. Just because I feel contrarian in your presence doesn’t mean any of the men do. Furthermore, I did not say I was going to change my opinion on the FI, only that you agreeing with me makes me feel like doing so. And that’s only because when someone who is so off-base agrees with something I say, then I have to stop and reevaluate whether I, too, am off-base. It’s a critical thinking skill, dear; try it some time.
Also, I agree with Feminist Hater’s 11:28 comment.
I don’t think anyone has called you “mean” – that would be yet another reframe. You have been called cruel and all sorts of nasty things, but saying you have been called “mean” is an attempt to reframe us as being child-like. You are the one who has been using THAT language.
And you have yet to every demonstrate an actual, bona fide attempt at understanding any one else’s points. Instead, you see everything through your own lens, and argue thusly, without looking at any one else’s position. This is a large part of reframing. This assumes that your reframe is simply out of stubborn ignorance (unwillingness to reconsider your position in the light of the facts) and not actual malice. A reframe can be based in either malice or ignorance.
When I first started seeing your posts, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I agree mostly with the others that you are just here as a troll, and that it is not your intention or desire to learn anything.
@Mr. T
“Anytime I point out that something that someone in the manosphere says doesn’t make sense they either call it a reframe or me being mean.”
Let me correct part of this for you.
Anytime I point out that something that someone in the manosphere dasys doesn’t make sense to me they either call it a reframe or me being mean.
So let me restate simply, in many instances you have attempted to argue for a position and when handed an opposing view that you cannot argue with you simply back up and pretend that you were actually trying to argue something else. It’s called a reframe and you do it regularly.
So is ‘T’ the old troll ‘J’ that was run off some time ago?
Just wondering as the modus operandi is similar…waddayareckon?
T is the Alanis Morrisette of the manosphere – she sounded ok out of the gate, but immediately devolved into screeching and passive-aggressive shaming, with extra syllables thrown in to sound high-falutin’. Every once in a while she pops out with something that doesn’t make you want to break the radio, but mostly it’s just refried leftover lines from the Fempowerment songbook.
And the worst part is, she has the ability to do better.
Why don’t you at least pick a worthy opposing view so you can better refine your support for the FI?
Thanks for the link, I will add that to the list of posts I need to write.
iForgot: I’ll remember you when nominations come up for Bimbo Wrangler of the Year.
“My toughest fight was my first wife.” – Muhammad Ali
It is easy to avoid dealing with people like “T” who seems to not really have any goal here but to throw stones and periodically pout. Ignore it.
As for the OP, it is a good analogy and can be applied to any number of ideas, including those in the manosphere (such as the feminine imperative which I remain decidedly agnostic about). Yet the challenge of dealing with such constant re-framing is that it tends to dominate the discourse (as T continues to demonstrate) and no real progress is made in unfolding the ideas.
My question is how to deal with that.
O. T.: When Mommy Lives in a Telletubby World.
T is a good example of a teenage girl. I know T isn’t a teenager but her behavior is very similar. At times she seems to “get it” and at other times you wonder if she is possessed..and then when you accuse her of such she bats her eyelashes and tells you she is misunderstood.
But then people say the same thing about me so… :p
@Nightsky..I can’t believe you would say that about AM.
@Sunshinemary. You are cracking me up.
Morticia – @Nightsky..I can’t believe you would say that about AM.
Why not? You must not know me very well 🙂
I do like a few Alanis songs, especially “You Oughta Know.” At the time, I knew quite a few girls who were dating brickheads. Having the RHCP rhythm section play on that song didn’t hurt either.
I have a soft spot for AM because people say I look like her and Natalie Merchants lesbian love child.
@An Norther Observer
In other words, men who believed the lie that compliance is sexy.
For something that does not allegedly exist there is a lot of gals exerting a lot of effort to deny,reframe,and try to stop discourse upon said subject.
That most men will drop the subject line and attempt to refute such refutations only shows the concept more clearly.
“Oh, we must somehow explain to these gals what it is..”
When we’ve already done that to satisfaction,repeatedly.
Women need to keep the idea they have it harder so men will keep diverting effort and resources to them.
Otherwise the free ride ends,and nobody wants that now,do we?
After all we need these gals to shore up the idea that marriage could work on an equal basis.
There is no equal basis,women talk until men give up,then give in.
It’s the time honored tradition of nagging endlessly until it’s no longer desirable to produce resistance.
The old “if mama’s not happy no one is.”
So we cave and try harder and despised for it.
God forbid the men grow a mind and see the light of the red pill.
Even the solitary man is supposed to be recruitable to serve married men’s wives by way of condescension to servitude.
Try putting the guy first in all things and see how quick the alienation from the fems begin.
It’s the shunning and disenfranchisement tactics that work so well.
Hence the popularity of shaming terms such as creepy loser.
Any man that thinks for himself and puts himself first fits these terms.
Because he rejects the FI and refuses to serve it,he must be punished and brought back to servitude/shackles.
It’s not like women are cold calculating manipulators who will stop at nothing to retain their sexes innate privilege.
(to be deferred to)
The gals keep shouting “it doesn’t exist and stop talking about it.”
That may work IRL were they’ve got the nuclear option to enforce such capriciousness,but on the net it just looks like fail.
Interesting that Dalrock wrote this whilst I was writing the above post:
” How many “good, nice betas” have been called names like this, not because they’re actually “creepy” but because they swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – the false doctrine that being a “nice guy” would get the girl and lead to a family and a happily ever after?
In other words, men who believed the lie that compliance is sexy.”
Or in laymans terms;
“serve the FI or never get laid”
Like that is the VERY definition of a man,to get laid no matter the sacrifice,even of due process in court.
Double plus extra points for synchronization.
A veritable indicator of universal truth.
Hehe.
Shades of “soup nazi.”
“No soup for you!”
@freebird
For something that does not allegedly exist there is a lot of gals exerting a lot of effort to deny,reframe,and try to stop discourse upon said subject.
I don’t see any of us expending much energy on denial, reframing, or trying to stop discourse. This in itself is a reframe from the valid criticisms put forth. In fact, I encouraged Dalrock to take on a more worthy opposing view instead of shooting fish in a barrel with T, while Sarah’s Daughter asked if simply using the word feminism didn’t have the same meaning. SSM, who made the point that it makes just as much sense using ‘quack quack’ in place of the term ‘feminine imperative’.
No denial, not much effort, no attempt to reframe, nor any to stop discourse (how on earth would we do that anyway?)
That most men will drop the subject line and attempt to refute such refutations only shows the concept more clearly.
Non sequitur. This neither proves nor disproves anything.
Women need to keep the idea they have it harder so men will keep diverting effort and resources to them.
Another attempt at reframe. None of the women commenting here has said that.
After all we need these gals to shore up the idea that marriage could work on an equal basis.
What does this even mean?
It’s the time honored tradition of nagging endlessly until it’s no longer desirable to produce resistance.
Challenging someone to take on more worthy criticism in order to produce a stronger impression of truth is nagging? This isn’t nagging; have you really experienced a nagging woman?
The gals keep shouting “it doesn’t exist and stop talking about it.”
Bollocks!
Dang, freebird, you seem to have put in a lot of effort to try to paint any woman who comments here in a negative light.
I haven’t been keeping up with the discussion of the feminine imperative but I think it can be understood as women’s fallen nature/original sin + herd mentality + the misapplication of social pressure/coercion.
Keep a snake for too long and don’t blame the snake when you get bitten.
I have here a letter from LADoR (The League Against the Defamation of Reptiles) asking that everyone please refrain from comparing feminists to snakes. Also, if you could stop referring to Satan as “the serpent”, that would be good too. That was a singular incident which it’s unfair to use as a basis for slandering everything with scales. (Except, of course, for fish. Those slimy bastards always get a free ride.)
I’ve read a lot of the defining of the feminine imperative and am honestly trying to grasp the meaning. Is it right to say feminism is a subset of it? Does the feminine imperative encompass all of the female nature (solipsism, hypergamy)? What of biblical submission? Those of you who have wives who live with you according to God’s commands, does this obedience negate the FI? Or is it another aspect of it? It’s just very confusing, especially when definitions are coming from non Christians and Christians alike.
For example, when I embraced biblical submission, my life view became my husband’s imperative. Does that make sense?
@Sarah’s Daughter
Those are good questions and it is amazing how long the FI theory has been bandied about while not integrated into previous manosphere wisdom. I’m sure Rollo has an answer, but we will have to wait until 9:00 AM EST on Monday morning to learn what it is.
Right. I understand solipsism completely. What’s not clear is the distinction between solipsism and the feminine imperative.
@Sarah’s Daughter
“It’s just very confusing, especially when definitions are coming from non Christians and Christians alike.”
That’s because it’s not something widely accepted yet. I’ll try an sum up what I can in a short answer. The feminine imperative is the basic feeling that men get that everything and everyone somehow work toward the good of women at the expense of everything else. To me, It’s observable, but not as simple as Rollo would make it seem. There are a lot of contributing factors, but the two primary reasons it exists are: 1) female solipsism 2) male desire to protect women.
These two things together are what I believe drive it. Lawyers use these two things together in the court room to produce the unnatural unevenness of divorce arrangements. Politicians use this to build voting blocks. Feminists use this to draw women and men into a mindset that women are abused by everything including themselves. Churches use this to keep their members stuck culturally at least 10 years behind exterior culture in the world around them. No matter how it manifests, it comes from these two base drives. That’s why when you pock a hole in a feminist ant hill, they go all crazy trying to restore it. Women can’t see outside of themselves, and men must protect women to the detriment of all.
@Morticia, please… don;t… do… this.
I. can. visualize, the. poor. sprog. She (any male would be gelded — emotionally if not physically– by 12) would either be an expert at whiny songs or a Trollette. The problem is that one of the (Marchant) is. a. good. musican. Pity she swallowed the liberal koolaid.
@Dalrock.
Your site, your rules, but I prefer to use Yodas:
Trollettes oxygen not give. Troll IP added to your blacklist is . Bahbammer happy is..
I believe we should all be grateful to T for explaining how the female thinks. At 10.15 she explains that if you are ‘not her type’ then you are creepy and unattractive – which seems a rather harsh judgement, for although I am attracted to few women I would not regard those I am not interested in as neccesarily being ugly sluts. Whether it is possible to be creepy without being unattractive, or unattractive without being creepy is not explored but the answer would appear to be No. Yet would you be more attractive if you overcame your creepiness and unattractiveness? If you oozed with confidence looks and physique? If you were the non-creepy kind of guy who does not take No for an answer – yet never crossing that invisible line where an accusation of Rape might be justifiably made? Or would T merely prefer it if all men just left her alone and ignored her seeing that the high standards she seeks are rarely attained? I am sure that could be arranged.
Thank you JoJ.
So is it correct in saying it is a feature not a bug? Yet a feature that is readily exploited? And feminism is a bug (virus actually)?
I got the impression from Rollo’s site that he sees Christianity (religion in general) as a means for women to shore up the imperative. Which is the very cynicism I would expect from a non believer. To borrow Vox’s phrase, post-Christian society will find its women in the brothel or the burka (either one the result of the feminine imperative?) But Christianity finds the way in between.?.
“a good example of a teenage girl.”
I thought that applied to the emotional maturity of most women over eighteen.
Well, Chris..I am an expert at whining. Sadly, I can’t carry a tune in a bucket. My lesbian parents did not pass on their musical gifts to me.
CL
don’t take it so personal.
As a Christian, I think that we have to look at scripture to get revelation on this. According to Genesis 3 women are to be saved by child bearing and will be subject to their husbands. Husbands will be forced to work the ground to provide for themselves and others. In return, the primary focus of each sex is on the ones lower than us on the hierarchy. Women have children under them, so their desire is to raise them up and protect them. Men have women and children under them so the desire is to protect women as they will naturally shelter the children.
Child bearing isn’t simply giving birth, but raising that child up to adult hood. Women aren’t doing this any more. They have handed this responsibility over to others for various selfish reasons such as “career”. In so doing, their focus shifts from raising children and gaining the wisdom to be found there to an inward focus we call solipsism.
That’s as far as I have had time to work out, but I’ll let you know after I think about it some more.
7man wrote:
That’s right, 7man. Do not doubt, but only believe, that there will be a perfectly Rational response explained with big words and “According to me” logic.
I have a series of posts on my rekicked blog, for those who want to read (and, as noted above, I am planning to write a post to respond to songtwo’s regrettable yet common misreading of Genesis, which is linked above regrettably).
@JoJ
In so doing, their focus shifts from raising children and gaining the wisdom to be found there to an inward focus we call solipsism.
The wisdom gained is recognizing our (women’s) innate (feature not a bug) solipsism and suppressing it and/or using it only in beneficial ways. Feminism embraces solipsism and allows it to ride roughshod over a society ignoring the consequences.
@greyghost
CL
don’t take it so personal.
No worries. I was refuting a nonsense argument/ attempt at reframing. (Have you ever experienced a woman taking it personally and emotionally so that you can distinguish between that and what I said?) Hey, I enjoy a rigorous debate.
Joseph of Jackson says: February 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm
“The feminine imperative is the basic feeling that men get that everything and everyone somehow work toward the good of women at the expense of everything else.”
This.
I’d add “regardless of whether or not it’s in women’s long-term interest.”
It’s like any other parasite or virus – it can only survive as long as the host survives and supports it.
JOJ is 100% correct. I haven’t meet any women at 27+ who haven’t started to go a little crazy if they haven’t had children. Children are suppose to act as a stabilizing force for women while women are suppose to act as a stabilizing force for men, but every road as turned crooked in the West
*has
Novaseeker,
My brain hurts a bit but I think I’m grasping what you are saying in your post. And it does help to explain a few things. You’re making the distinction between feminism and the feminine imperative which helps to explain our frustration as parents of teenage girls who, not having been exposed to much feminism, say/do/react the way they do (feminine imperative/female-variant of the super-norm).
It also does a fantastic job explaining women, who claim to not be feminists, but seem so blithely ignorant to their culpability of the problem our society faces. Sarah Palin comes to mind. As well as every well intentioned mother or father out there who is sending princess out into the world to be all that she can be.
@T
” I can’t let them wander around believing that their morality scares women off”…No. Stop getting defensive and rewriting history. Only in hindsight did your hamster tell you that you were”only trying to help”. try reading what you actually wrote btw.
Also, I didn’t say that morality scares women off. I said that a woman will try to hide HER immorality. That she will find it attractive to be around people just as immoral as she is, because THEY can’t judge her then.. And also she will SECRETLY hate anyone who “cant understand what shes been through”. An immoral woman who has truely repented may be able to get past herself and stop hiding from what is good and holy. But an unrepentant sinner always trys to hide their sin. Where confusion comes is a woman who is unrepentant, but plays the part of the “good church girl”. The very definition of
the Greek word “hypocrate”, which means “actor”.
“as far as attraction, morality is neutral”
Not to me it’s not. I find morality very attractive, but that’s just probably because I have the holy spirit. Those without it are turned off by morality.
Opus says: @ February 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm
“I believe we should all be grateful to T for explaining how the female thinks. At 10.15 she explains that if you are ‘not her type’ then you are creepy and unattractive – […] Yet would you be more attractive if you overcame your creepiness and unattractiveness?”
Opus – you’re falling into the trap of arguing from T’s definitions as if they meant anything outside of her little world. Based on what T’s written, it wouldn’t matter if a man was nice, kind, compassionate, caring, strong yet gentle, and had all the other positive qualities a good man is supposed to have – if T didn’t feel attracted to him, he is – to her – “creepy”. This is the “re-framing” she’s been called on by others.
Since it’s based on her feelings and not on a classic measure of a person’s character, a man has little to no chance of overcoming his so-called “creepiness” or “unattractiveness” once she’s passed this judgement, because her feelings aren’t about the man’s character but about her emotions. As such, no man should give it any credence in informing his actions or efforts to change how he is seen in the eyes of women like her, as sooner or later they will find themselves at the short end of the stick when her feelings change.
This should be taken as an example of how T’s mind works, what a rationalization hamster looks like when it’s in action, and used as a lesson to aid in recognizing this kind of framing for the nonsense it is.
I believe we should all be grateful to T for explaining how the female thinks. At 10.15 she explains that if you are ‘not her type’ then you are creepy and unattractive – which seems a rather harsh judgement, for although I am attracted to few women I would not regard those I am not interested in as neccesarily being ugly sluts. Whether it is possible to be creepy without being unattractive, or unattractive without being creepy is not explored but the answer would appear to be No. Yet would you be more attractive if you overcame your creepiness and unattractiveness? If you oozed with confidence looks and physique? If you were the non-creepy kind of guy who does not take No for an answer – yet never crossing that invisible line where an accusation of Rape might be justifiably made? Or would T merely prefer it if all men just left her alone and ignored her seeing that the high standards she seeks are rarely attained? I am sure that could be arranged.
A man can be unattractive without being creepy, however creepy men are almost always unattractive. Good looking men are sometimes creepy. Not being creepy usually increases attractiveness. I am married to an attractive, non creepy man who meets my high standards, but thank you for your concern.
And speaking of creepy – If you were the non-creepy kind of guy who does not take No for an answer – yet never crossing that invisible line where an accusation of Rape might be justifiably made?
I’d bet that you get called creepy a lot.
An northern Observer
nailed it
you’re falling into the trap of arguing from T’s definitions as if they meant anything outside of her little world. Based on what T’s written, it wouldn’t matter if a man was nice, kind, compassionate, caring, strong yet gentle, and had all the other positive qualities a good man is supposed to have – if T didn’t feel attracted to him, he is – to her – “creepy”. This is the “re-framing” she’s been called on by others.
Since it’s based on her feelings and not on a classic measure of a person’s character, a man has little to no chance of overcoming his so-called “creepiness” or “unattractiveness” once she’s passed this judgement, because her feelings aren’t about the man’s character but about her emotions. As such, no man should give it any credence in informing his actions or efforts to change how he is seen in the eyes of women like her, as sooner or later they will find themselves at the short end of the stick when her feelings change.
This should be taken as an example of how T’s mind works, what a rationalization hamster looks like when it’s in action, and used as a lesson to aid in recognizing this kind of framing for the nonsense it is.
You are mistaken. There are plenty men that I find unattractive and noncreepy.
T says: February 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm
You are mistaken. There are plenty men that I find unattractive and noncreepy.
Now you’re changing your story – first it was “unattractive” = “creepy”, and now that I’ve called you on it, you’re changing your tune. This is exactly the kind of “tides of the moment” behavior I predicted we’d see from you.
I’ll also bet this list is ever-changing depending on your “feelings” at the time.
I can’t let them wander around believing that their morality scares women off”…No. Stop getting defensive and rewriting history. Only in hindsight did your hamster tell you that you were”only trying to help”. try reading what you actually wrote btw.
Also, I didn’t say that morality scares women off. I said that a woman will try to hide HER immorality. That she will find it attractive to be around people just as immoral as she is, because THEY can’t judge her then.. And also she will SECRETLY hate anyone who “cant understand what shes been through”. An immoral woman who has truely repented may be able to get past herself and stop hiding from what is good and holy. But an unrepentant sinner always trys to hide their sin. Where confusion comes is a woman who is unrepentant, but plays the part of the “good church girl”. The very definition of
the Greek word “hypocrate”, which means “actor”.
“as far as attraction, morality is neutral”
Not to me it’s not. I find morality very attractive, but that’s just probably because I have the holy spirit. Those without it are turned off by morality.
Again you are reaching. If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both. Her being immoral and your being more moral won’t make her claim that you are a creep. But if all that rationalizing makes you feel better about being rejected then go with it I guess.
T says: February 9, 2013 at 8:01 pm
“If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both.”
In other words, the man’s completely responsible for how a woman evaluates him and the woman has no role in how she makes this evaluation.
This is abusive behavior, and you need to stop that.
Now.
The correct statement is:
If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of her perception of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both.
At least one other woman has written how she started looking for the good in men, and lo-and-behold, she found out that there were more attractive men in the world.
What changed? It wasn’t the men – it was her and the attitude she brought to how she viewed them.
Imagine that! A woman taking responsibility for how she sees men and changing her perception of the world for the better, instead of making it the men’s fault!
@Sarah’s Daughter
I haven’t read the entire thread, and I see that Novaseeker is also writing some posts on the topic. However what strikes me about this question is that you seem to understand what I’m describing, and you are using the term feminism to describe it (as would Zippy and some others I believe) instead of FI. This makes me think we really aren’t that far apart, because what I showed T doing in the OP doesn’t fit what 99% of the population would define as “feminism”. The same goes for Lydia as described in this post, and the “good girl” in this post. Obviously when you use the term “feminism” above, you aren’t talking about what is commonly understood as feminism. So this is therefore something different than what is understood as feminism. I would say we generally see the same thing, but we are just disagreeing on the proper term for what we are observing. Would you disagree?
No, Dalrock, I don’t disagree at all. I’m starting to understand it a lot clearer now having read what Novaseeker wrote. As I said upthread a bit, it does a better job explaining the “I’m not a feminist” conservative woman who still bats for team woman. I was of the understanding that these women and men are blind to how feminist they actually are. But you’re right, women like T would not describe themselves as feminists and even describe themselves as Christians but are clueless to their nature that is culpable for the destruction of the family at a base level and society as a whole.
@freebird
soup naziette: serves soup w/only a fork
It may be apocryphal, but I remember reading once that a woman tried heckling Winston Churchill at some speaking event. She said (approximately), “I’ll have you know Mr. Churchill, that in fifty years women will run the world!”
Churchill paused dramatically and then said: “What – still?!”
Maybe he didn’t qualify as a denizen of the manosphere. I’ve yet to see how FI v48,327.3 is much improved over previous releases. When H.L. Mencken wrote about Nietzsche’s “slave morality” in In Defense of Women – Section 16: A Conspiracy of Silence – almost 100 yrs ago, he was working on v34,821.5, I reckon.
The real problem with “feminine imperative” is that no matter how many times you familiarize yourself with the concept, it still requires a trip to the dictionary.
And to those of us who took Français in high school, it just has to be some trick or rule of thumb to help figure out which damned nouns get a “la” rather than a “le”, n’est pas? lollz
@T:
“High Standards?”
Wow, you’re really generous with the red meat today. They’re going to go crazy over that, being as how most of the manosphere tends to be betas and omegas bitterly realizing that they never had a chance with the hot girls, and never will.
Not on either side, for what it’s worth.
Mortician says:
I was unfair to Natalie Marchant. The woman is a true performer, and she can girl game a TED meeting.
I’m still on the fence about this whole FI thing, but I believe “feminist” is technically the correct term to use. Not in the political sense, like Feminists, but in the sense of setting one thing above others (racist, elitist, etc). However, it’s pretty much impossible to use that word without visions of a screeching Gloria Steinem and the rest springing to the reader’s mind.
I posted over on SSM’s place the term Frau Überlegenen, which literally translates to “woman superior.” It’s not easily confused with Feminism, has that snappy German psychological cachet to it, and has a rather fitting acronym.
Why yes, I do think I’m witty and clever, thank you.
On the FI thing, I think it is a mistake to give a new label to something which would have been straightforwardly known as “feminism” a few decades ago. Giving ground on language is a form of capitulation. Sure, there are plenty of “conservatives” who have strong loyalties to feminism and yet will disclaim feminism. Today’s conservatism is just yesterday’s liberalism. But so what about the disclaimers? People disclaim their loyalties all the time without making them any less real.
Why capitulate to a reframe-via-semantics?
Northern Observer describes the The feminine imperative brilliantly
ALL women pay the price for their shit tests, their slut defence, their bitch shields & their constant rejection of who they know are good men, for 10 minutes of alpha
The price women pay is the destruction of their sense of reason & logic
The price women pay is that they can no longer handle the truth of their reason or logic
Nothing turns a woman into a stone cold bitch, faster then a ride on the carousel
The string of failed relationships, getting kicked out of strangers beds endlessly, the ridiculously large amounts of men they reject & despise on a daily basis, for no real reason
The MASSIVE amounts of degradation & idiocracy women put themselves through, for 10 minutes of alpha, always leads to massive amounts of cognitive dissonance
Paybacks a bitch for women, & its name is cognitive dissonance
The feminine imperative is payback for women
The feminie imperative destroys a womans ability to learn from her mistakes, she circles out of control, hoping another 10 minutes of alpha’ll fix everything
Karma’s a bitch ladies
@ Northern Observer
What’s funny about this whole discussion is that it’s very likely that every man that T’s ever slept with, dated, kissed or had a crush on has been thought of as “creepy” by at least one other woman (perhaps more) who wasn’t as attracted to him as T was. Women just don’t get that the very men they think are attractive might be called “creeps” by other women who don’t find them so attractive.
Thanks, SD.
T says:
“I resent”
I resent, therefore I am.
The rest is commentary.
“‘If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both.’
In other words, the man’s completely responsible for how a woman evaluates him and the woman has no role in how she makes this evaluation.
This is abusive behavior, and you need to stop that.”
Good point.
Compare:
“If a white thinks that you are uppity and shiftless then it is because of your attitude or your work ethic, maybe both.”
This is not the kind of statement that makes it to truth value determination in our culture. It is recognized, correctly, as an expression of dominance.
No sale.
Would it be accurate to identify FI with a “soft matriarchy” (as opposed to a true matriarchy), in which woman seek their own advantage within the context of the modern state?
@Sarah’s Daughter
“The wisdom gained is recognizing our (women’s) innate (feature not a bug) solipsism and suppressing it and/or using it only in beneficial ways. Feminism embraces solipsism and allows it to ride roughshod over a society ignoring the consequences.”
Let me explain a little further. Solipsism is a human characteristic not a female one. It’s just more predominant in females. As a Christian, again I think we have to go back to the curses in Genesis 3 to understand what is happening.
God cursed Adam and Eve, but at the end he added it was for our benefit. I believe that the curses were created as a buffer against sin. Let me take two examples from the Bible and show you.
The first one is King David and Bathsheba. David was supposed to be out with the army, but instead he was back home lazing around. He was not operating in the curse God had given him. His work was unattended. As such, David became inward focused and I believe a case could be made that solipsism began to be his mindset and thus sin began to grow Because David was focused only on his own little world, he fell into temptation and sin. This continued until the prophet confronted David about his behavior.
Then look at Jezebel. This was a woman who was concerned with things outside of her family. As such, she became solipsistic in her mindset. She was not concerned with properly raising her children, but with killing Elijah and God’s prophets. She is like many women today. They have jobs, but their minds are not built like a man’s. Even with daily work in front of them, they can still become solipsistic. The need children present to break this and keep solipsism at bay.
In my view, our curses prevents the mind from taking on a solipsistic perspective and in turn allowing sin to flourish. Sin is still there, but solipsism is like adding fertilizer to a garden. Sin without solipsism is like a plant without fertilizer. It can still grow, just much more slowly.
Again, I’m still working this out in my mind, but the basic gist is that God made the curses knowing that our minds would become focused on ourselves without them. In doing so, our sinful nature would flourish and thus we would fall into depravity.
Solipsism is indeed a bug that is caused by sin and can aggravate sins condition in our lives. It’s part of our fallen nature, and helps sin to flourish all at once.
When I saw T say this: “‘If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both” I apologize, I only saw a flippant comment from an idiot troll that I believe seeks to incite derision.
Then, An Northern Observer said: “In other words, the man’s completely responsible for how a woman evaluates him and the woman has no role in how she makes this evaluation.
This is abusive behavior, and you need to stop that.
Now.
The correct statement is:
If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of her perception of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both.
At least one other woman has written how she started looking for the good in men, and lo-and-behold, she found out that there were more attractive men in the world.
What changed? It wasn’t the men – it was her and the attitude she brought to how she viewed them.
Imagine that! A woman taking responsibility for how she sees men and changing her perception of the world for the better, instead of making it the men’s fault!”
This struck me. Abusive behavior? Wait…he’s got a point. Our attitudes definitely affect our perceptions. As women, our default attitude tends to be that men are responsible for everything, including our perception of them. When we actively seek to take responsibility for our own behaviors and perceptions, we start to see things differently around us. We start to have….empathy. We start to rein in the flippant and abhorrent judgements and see individuals…differently.
Then, Desiderius brings it home with a very apt and much needed comparative: “If a white thinks that you are uppity and shiftless then it is because of your attitude or your work ethic, maybe both.”
This is not the kind of statement that makes it to truth value determination in our culture. It is recognized, correctly, as an expression of dominance,/b>.
Guys, my sincere apologies, this may have all seemed obvious to you. I’ll readily admit it often takes this type of rhetoric in order for me to grasp a concept. This might be why I have such a hard time reading and understanding what Rollo has been trying to get across. Ie. Paint me a picture so I can see what you’re saying.
ZippyCatholic
On the FI thing, I think it is a mistake to give a new label to something which would have been straightforwardly known as “feminism” a few decades ago.
This is a wonderful simplifying assumption for various reasons. For one thing, it pretty much would end further exploration of the Feminine Imperative…and that would have a lot of appeal to many traditionalists, who simply Do Not Like Certain Thoughts and would have them be banished in some sense. Also, by limiting the scope to “feminism”, it can be pretended that women are, after all, really inherently monogamous, and just got damaged or corrupted by that darned hormonal birth control and divorce laws and such. The behavior seen is not their fault. It’s all men’s fault, once again…
There is a bit of a problem; Sir John Glubb in his little work on civilizations claims to have read in original documents of the same behavior we modern men describe as falling within the FI, from the past – centuries past, in fact. If you are going to argue that feminism, as currently understood in the Steineim / NOW sense, also existed in Baghdad some 1,000 years ago, I believe you have some work cut out for you. On the other hand, if there is some inborn collection of traits within women that tend to run riot in times of great excess of resources, then that offers explanatory and predictive powers, but it cannot under any reasonable circumstances be called “feminism” without a radical redefinition of the term.
If it is any consolation, a year or so back I read a few postings by Zed in a few places where he used the word “femininism”. This word has a lot of semantic depth to it. Perhaps it is an accurate descriptor of the Feminine Imperative in some aspect. But clearly Feminism would be a subset of Femininism, as the latter long predates the former.
I am bound to say that T does appear to exhibit what I (as an English man – and it is not since the last millenium that I was a guest on your country) have thus only heard of by repute, namely the attempt by American women of the current generation to put down by way of nuclear rejection – and frequently publicly – any man that they are not attracted to and to treat any attempt at wooing as merely a crude sexual proposition. At least a pre-emptive strike will scythe away men who might otherwise presume to be suitable for them – which of course very very few can ever be. The predictable corollary found in the PUA community is to treat all women as Sluts or sluts-in-training – and seemingly many American women are only too keen to reveal their strength and independence by living up to that epithet. I rather suspect that this is evidence of a vast immaturity in certain American women in their failure to relate to men as human beings, rather than as walking Dildos to be turned on and off and with an ethos redolent of a homo-sexual bathhouse.
In the days when my country was awash with Au-Pairs (I am not sure whether you have that in America) that is to say young women under the age of twenty-eight who lodge with a family and act as rather underpaid Maids and Nannys but who gain the opportunity to the learn the language and the culture, I got to know vast numbers of girls from a certain European country. They were not only usually trim of figure and easy on the eye, but relaxed in themsleves and always happy to talk: with some of course it went further. Even then the contrast with the home grown Sheila was very noticable.
Still, I suppose I must take T at her word, for at 07.30pm she reasserts her superiority and high standards and reminds me that I am merely a creepy would-be-Rapists. How can I ever live with myself. I had better go outside now. ‘I might be a little time’. [que music by Vaughan Williams]
@ Sarah’s Daughter says: February 10, 2013 at 12:57 am (Stuff).
Sadly, such abusive thinking / behavior isn’t confined to just “T”, I was partly looking in the mirror when I wrote that, because it’s something I’ve done (and have been doing) to others. Making others responsible for your opinion / perception of them by-and-large will affect how you treat them, and it’s generally not for the better.
A person’s treatment of others flows from what you think of them, and if they are responsible for your opinion of them and not you yourself, then you’ve got a nice way to rationalize your mistreatment of otherwise good people, because it’s their fault, and not yours.
Being that this is mostly internal, it’s darn hard to recognize and fight, which is why it must be confronted head on when you see it yourself or in others.
@ Retrenched says: February 9, 2013 at 11:26 pm
Women just don’t get that the very men they think are attractive might be called “creeps” by other women who don’t find them so attractive.
This is why we need to remember that a woman’s (or any person’s) qualitative statement about another (ie “creepy”, “unattractive”) is based on their perception of the person in question, which (usually isn’t) the same as a classic inventory of that person’s character.
I think it is amazing that well-intentioned and smart red-pill women like Sunshine Mary are unable to understand a simple and obvious concept such as the feminine imperative. I think this speaks volumes about a blind spot in the female mind (read: hamster-related), which it would be interesting to explore.
Feminine imperative =
– The fact that society considers morally and socially right and desirable the female natural instincts and every thing that helps them and derives from them (and wrong every thing that opposes them). The male natural instincts are not granted the same status but are judged under the light of the female natural instincts.
– The fact that society is organized to help these female natural instincts to succeed in spite of the male natural instincts or any other thing that could enter in conflict with the former.
For example, man are naturally polygamous . Women are by natural serial monogamists. Serial monogany is considered right by society and nobody would shame a girl who has had three boyfriends. She is considered “a good girl”. Polygamy is considered bad and every man who has several sexual partners at the same time is considered a scum (look, for example, Tiger Woods). In other words, the female form of promiscuity is considered right and the female form of promiscuity is considered wrong. Family law and the whole society are build around this concept.
Men are attracted to external features (ass, boobs, etc) and women are attracted to internal features (dominant personality, etc). But being attracted to external features is shallow and men are shamed because of it. Being attracted to internal features is considered right, wise and the thing every person (male or female) should do.ç
And I could go on and on and on…
When you are born man, you see that society considers your natural instincts and drives as something dirty and wrong and you are told to have the same instincts and drives than a woman naturally has. Every brick of the wall we call “society” has been put there to help the female natural instincts and the male natural instincts can go to pound sand.
As the creator of Dilbert said, if you are a man you feel as if you were a square rod and the world had only round holes. You spend all your life trying to survive in this hostile environment. This is the feminine imperative and it is obvious for every man.
Female characteristics were always present today ,yesterday and 2000 years ago. I think what makes it feminism is when society accepts thoses characteristics as normal for a healthy society beyond what is normal for a woman.When a society does that we have the behavior that we see today from the frivorce, the baby momma, cock carousel riding, churchianship, paternity fraud that is fully rewared without consequence etc. etc, With the vote rule of law under the bill of rights has been abused to the point that we have a police state full of laws to provide safety that doesn’t exist from the providers. It doesn’t get better and will not change with diolog with women because it will mean women have to change the characteristics of females. Impossible. Mr T is a normal woman she votes and has rights. There will be no changes made reguardless of arguements of logic and example. (abortion is legal just the way women want it even women that think it is wrong)
The amazing thing is the same female characteristics driven by the same selfish childish nature can bring behavior that will be seen as kind and virtuous.
Good analogy, imnobody. Another one I can mention and described elsewhere is that you can think of the feminine imperative as a labyrinth that all males are thrown into as soon as they start to mature. There’s no escape – all your life you’ll be wandering through corridors, disoriented, not knowing what to make of it all. It’s the only structure you’ll ever know – nobody will ever show you the path that leads outside. Not even your parents and relatives. Because by virtue of having a penis, you’re here to serve until you die.
It doesn’t matter whether you grow up to hate women or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter what you think or feel at all. And, of course, it doesn’t matter what path you choose, because there’s no escape. As soon as you dare to even question any woman’s actions, or do anything that can be seen as an impediment to women’s interests, you’re toast. You become a pariah, an untouchable. It doesn’t matter what you’ve accomplished or contributed in life. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do.
Are you a dutiful husband with children? You’re just another privileged, prejudiced male with a sense of entitlement.
Are you an employed, hard-working single man? You’re just another white asshole who thinks he’s entitled to anything just because he has a job and abides by the law.
Are you unemployed and single? You’re just another Peter Pan refusing to man up, intimidated by strong independent womyn.
Are you struggling to pay child support? Screw you. You should have kept it in your pants. Who are you to complain? Raising a child costs money, you know!
Are you an expat? You’re just a misogynist loser who wants an obedient, exotic little female slave because you cannot handle strong independent Western womyn.
Are you stuck working a dead-end job in a white trash area? You’re just another loser who refuses to improve himself and compete.
Are you a PUA? You’re a mentally damaged misogynist asshole who pleasures himself in degrading innocent women and selling snake oil to the clueless.
Are you someone learning Game? You’re just a horrible creep with a chip on his shoulder who feels entitled to women outside his league and wanting to get back at them for getting dumped.
Are you a traditionalist? You’re just another right-winger redneck sticking to his guns and wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
Are you a MGTOW? You’re just a loathsome, misogynist creep wallowing in self-pity.
Etc.
You can’t win no matter what you do. Not only is there an entire social-cultural-political edifice to keep you trapped forever, you probably won’t even notice that you’re in a trap.
Lot of girls on this post commenting, and it’s feeling pretty NAWALT at the edges. Dalrock not only proves his point, but the comment section confirms the group defense of his unspeakable (to women) truth.
What are you ladies gonna do in ten years when your bad behavior pushes this stuff out into the mainstream? It’s been proven that all society needs is a 10% change in a secular evangelical belief (in this case Red Pill) to force wholesale change.
At least your granddaughters will be happy.
@AR
I think you’ve gone pretzle and vanished down the FI semantic rabbit hole.
In Rene Denfeld’s book The New Victorians there’s a photo of an early 70’s woman’s street march. Even though the pic is of the banner and the women holding it at the head of the procession, in the rest of the scene you can see a protest sign being held up which says “We Take the Woman’s Side in Everything!”.
One can explore all the nuanced meanings of the word “everything”, and what it might consist of, but the essence doesn’t change. How can this new, improved “feminine imperative” be anything more than that? “Everything” pretty much covers it all.
Zed’s term is clever, but sounds like stuttering when actually spoken. I still prefer “feminacentrism” – not sure what’s wrong with it. “Gynocentrism” has been used by some – more of a feminist/lesbian tinge to it, which is sometimes called for.
Funny thought… Betty Friedan’s “problem that had no name” was really projection. It is men’s problem which conveniently doesn’t have one, even as all roads lead to Rome, so to speak.
“The shrill feminists who made men the enemy took shrewd advantage of the fact that men hate arguing with women.”
– Kate O’Beirne
A woman who follows the Lord will find good character to be attractive in a man. Unfortunately most women in the church are not Christians. A confident single Christian man can let them weed themselves out, but if he’s the type to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, he will lose faith that God is with him. Years can be lost second guessing yourself and trying to live up to false worldly standards. That’s why a Christian man needs to be strong in the Lord and have faith that if a woman is disqualifying herself, it’s because she is seeking after worldly men. A true woman of God will not see herself as being above others, and will be honored that a good Christian man has taken an interest in her. If she rejects what God has given her by playing the harlot, and seeking after strange lovers, then let her turn to a pillar of salt.
“Those who are of the spirit seek after the things of the spirit, those who are carnal seek after the things of the flesh” Romans 8:5
This whole chapter in Romans sums the whole thing up nicely actually. Read all of chapter 8.
Das Kitzeln der Frau über alles?
Somehow appropriate,
I’m not sure this is true, because if it was then the analogue would also be true ( a man who follows the Lord will find good character to be attractive in a woman).
Good character is necessary, but not sufficient and an abundance of good character cannot make up for physical repulsiveness. Besides there are a lot of women I find attractive who lack character entirely. The same is true for women.
The difference though is that I did not make a marriage decision merely on the basis of physical attraction, but on the combination of physical and other characteristics. Many women seem to be deceived (perhaps willingly self-deceived) that good character is all that matters and then find themselves struggling (hamsterisation) for a justification of letting Harley Rockbanddrummer practice deep sea oil drilling on her backfield.
Women just as men, must be made aware of the reality of their sexuality and not practice such self-deceit.
Men are already well aware that ‘good character’ is decidedly NOT what matters when it comes to attraction.
tbc, the passage deals with priorities. Someone who is only interested in things that matter of a worldly nature, they are not following the Lord. A woman who puts down a good Christian man in favour of a bad man, is not seeking after God, she’s seeking after worldly temptations, in other words, she’s seeking pleasure above God.
Attraction is a different cookie. Everyone has attraction filters and therefore will not be attracted certain people and that is understandable. What this does not do though, is give reason for a woman, or a man, to call another person creepy based on their looks alone.
@Imnobody
If Dalrock would do a post on this, I think it would be amazing. The fact that women as a group are either incapable of seeing this, or completely resistant to how it is defined has been interesting. We only know a few though, so I’m not sure it would be an accurate assessment of all women based on the few good ones we have around here who show this trait.
Oh I think women would quickly understand what the FI meant if it were the other way around. This could truly be a case of simply not being aware of the issue because one is in the Catbird seat. The mentality could be so ingrained in most people that thinking outside of it is enough to bring the brain to heel.
I have my issues with the FI too. However, logically, I’m fully aware that society tends to do as much as it can to favour the needs of women above men.
Concerning the FI issue, if I may wade into the waters here, I think it is really a human biological imperative. After all it is in everyone’s best interests to protect women and their progeny, and so naturally things develop in society towards that end. It is likewise in the best interest of society (overall) to restrict the natural biological impulse of men AND women.
Such an imperative makes perfect sense when paired with societal obligations on the part of both men and women. So what is being termed the “Feminine Imperative” seems to be nothing more than the normal human biological imperative unmoored from its attendant social obligations and is comparable perhaps to PUA-ism, that is, alpha males (or would be alpha males) hyper polygamous behavior.
For example, man are naturally polygamous . Women are by natural serial monogamists. Serial monogany is considered right by society and nobody would shame a girl who has had three boyfriends. She is considered “a good girl”. Polygamy is considered bad and every man who has several sexual partners at the same time is considered a scum (look, for example, Tiger Woods). In other words, the female form of promiscuity is considered right and the female form of promiscuity is considered wrong. Family law and the whole society are build around this concept.
Right, which is why, to me, hard monogamy was a compromise position (in this I agree with donalgraeme, who corrected me on that point, for which I owe him thanks).
I’ve said it here and elsewhere before, but I will say it again now because it is relevant: I think that Dalrock’s breakthrough proposition that serial monogamy is simply the female preferred form of promiscuity (i.e., for almost all women other than the most high sociosexuality, r-selecting/High-T women) is the most subversive thing he has ever written, and also profoundly true. It is also the gateway to understanding what we are trying to get at, identify and describe when we are discussing the female-variant of the super-norm (my own very much “work-in-progress” term for what we are discussing). This is because the widespread acceptance of the serial monogamy script as being “good” by pretty much everyone regardless of political, religious, and philosophical affiliation demands an explanation, and that explanation cannot be as facile as “it’s feminism”, precisely because feminism as a movement promoted no such script, and indeed was proposing relationship models that were much more radical than anything involving serial monogamous relationships with a series of men. It isn’t feminism. It’s something else. And that “something else” is what we are trying to identify, describe and understand in these discussions and posts.
In thinking about the relationship between feminism and the female-variant of the super-norm, I picture two rivers that flow into one, where immediately prior to the point at which they join there has been erected a big dam that spans both rivers and modulates their flow into the one, joined river. Each river represents a variant of the super-norm — the male and female variants, respectively. The dam in this picture is patriarchal hard monogamy, something which restricts both rivers and modulates them into a flow that is good for the joined river into which they both flow past the dam. One day a group of terrorists comes along and blows up the dam on the female river — the explosion also blows up some of the male river dam, but much less of it. These terrorists are, of course, the feminists. In the aftermath of the explosion, the female river is overflowing the dam, and has a hugely disproportionate flow into the joined river — this is our current cultural situation.
Now, someone living through this would clearly blame the feminist terrorists for blowing up the dam, because the explosion resulted in the overflowing of the female side of the river. However, the garbage that is flooding the observer’s street isn’t feminism, but the female river — too much of it, in an unmodulated way, such that it is overwhelming the male contribution to the river, which is still being (mostly) modulated by the dam. It’s that “flow” that we are discussing — not the feminist explosion that allowed it to flow, but the actual flow itself. This is something distinct from feminism, and claiming that it is simply feminism really looks like deliberate obfuscation once the concept is properly understood.
I may make a post about this analogy (which like all analogies, has its uses and limitations, for certain) later today on my blog if I have the time.
@Anon
“High Standards?”
Wow, you’re really generous with the red meat today. They’re going to go crazy over that, being as how most of the manosphere tends to be betas and omegas bitterly realizing that they never had a chance with the hot girls, and never will.
Not on either side, for what it’s worth.
Now reading it put this way makes me feel sorry for them.
@ desiderous
“If a white thinks that you are uppity and shiftless then it is because of your attitude or your work ethic, maybe both.”
This is not the kind of statement that makes it to truth value determination in our culture. It is recognized, correctly, as an expression of dominance.
No sale.
Now this is an interesting point. However while I think that racism and its social implications is an ugly thing it is entirely different from a women deciding that a man is creepy. Finding a man creepy has nothing to do with dominance. I’m not dominating him I’m just not dating him, marrying him or letting him buy me a drink.
@ ANO
In other words, the man’s completely responsible for how a woman evaluates him and the woman has no role in how she makes this evaluation.
This is abusive behavior, and you need to stop that.
Now.
The correct statement is:
If a woman thinks that you are unattractive and creepy then it is because of her perception of your appearance or your social skills, maybe both.
At least one other woman has written how she started looking for the good in men, and lo-and-behold, she found out that there were more attractive men in the world.
What changed? It wasn’t the men – it was her and the attitude she brought to how she viewed them.
Imagine that! A woman taking responsibility for how she sees men and changing her perception of the world for the better, instead of making it the men’s fault!
There is no objective standard of creepy, so the woman is forced to use her own perspective. If she finds most men creepy then this may be a personal problem that she needs to address. However if she only finds a few men creepy then there’s no reason for her to make any changes.
If most women find a certain man creepy, chances are the problem is him. Before he assumes it is a problem of perception on her end he needs to make sure that there isn’t something that he’s doing that is giving the creep impression. I see that you “red pill” men address that by telling men to improve their appearance and work on their social skills.
Favoring the needs of women above men is and irresponsible thing to do. A responsible and strong society favors the needs of the society with rule of law and individual men will elevate the needs of individual women through marriage and commitment. The same female characteristics that make for the feral behavior we have today in a society the elevates womens needs/wants to a priorty (even over children) will be more cooperative and empathectic because that behavior will take care of her selfish needs. Even Mr T may be a sweet thing that cares.
A woman who follows the Lord will find good character to be attractive in a man.
No. That is desirable but not attractive. Does a woman’s virtuous behavior, irrespective of her appearance and persona, give you a boner? I’d be very surprised if the answer is yes. It isn’t different for women. Attraction is one thing, and is visceral. Christians, of course, must screen, after attraction, for other factors, including godliness, before selecting a mate. But attractiveness and godliness are not the same thing.
This quote from Sunshine Mary is possibly the most important thing you should know about the Feminine Imperative, other than that it exists:
“It’s hopeless to try refute the FI, hun, save your breath. They’ve already voted on it and it’s part of the catechism now.”
These discussions are for men to further shape the narrative that gives men the tools to make sense of the world and to make choices and take actions that are based on true awareness and not the cultural narrative that is the FI dominates and controls.
Think of the FI as a giant battleship will incredibly thick steel walls. Over the past year, I would read things on various blogs and scream with delight like a Marine Artilleryman as salvos are fired “Get sum baby!!” and watched as those shell just bounced of the side. At best, the arguments we posed are getting the “Battleship” FI to change course but we never will sink it or damage it, even a little.
This whole issue of housework and whether masculine chores led to more attraction than typical feminine housework was the first MSM attack, ( And I wouldn’t even call it an attack. A study came out from an academic and it got press) on the FI issue of housework and as far as I can see, I wouldn’t even call it a glancing blow. Jezebel ridiculed it. Most women never even noticed it.
There have major articles in the past, even from huge MSN publications like the Time article about the more equitable division of labor that is actually going in marriages entitled “OK, You Can Stop Arguing Now”. And nothing.
I can remember listening to NPR in 2007 with a woman professor speaking in a story, a typical story, about all the demands made on modern women and where she spent this hour here doing this chore, this hour here shopping, this hour here commuting, and compared that to the amount of time in a household that the “Standard Hours” for all the different tasks of running a life, a family, and a home. The sum total of these “Standard Hours” was far greater than the time a woman had in a week after subtracting sleep. The interviewer asked then how is this possible and the female interviewer said, “Men.”
And was there a major publicity celebrating this “Happy Days are here again….” noting how men, in addition to heavy demands at work in a way that women do not have, a lack of his flexibility that women are allowed, more commuting, more at home after hours work expected due to new connectivity, that men were doing more and more and more.
So despite whatever info comes out, even if Oprah and Dr Phil called joint press conference on The View to say “OK, put this issue to bed”, it will still remain entwined in the Feminine Imperative because it is exactly the most workable excuse for denying sex and justifying divorce after the attraction to the man has been killed.
So the most important thing to a man when he begins to hear this housework ruse or this “my satisfaction” complaint is not what is being said but rather that it is being said.
The actions that you should take are up to you. You can go the Athol Kay route. You can try to revive desire. Or you can fire the first shot in the impending war that is coming your way.
She is not attracted to you because you are good husband. She considers you a good husband because she is attracted to you, both, and I emphasize BOTH, physically and financially.
I am not a man that came into the Manosphere and was shocked by what I found here. Yes, some data and views have deeply pissed me off. But I came into it with some tenets that have been further explained.
I had a concept that I formed while living in Colombia called “La Pareja Ideal”. Pareja means couple, pair, boyfriend and girlfriend in a committed relationship, Ask a man what “La Pareja Ideal” is and he will say “We’re good together. We are attracted to each other. We talk. We’re loving.” The woman believes no such nonsense, to her the Parjea is the man, when she says “mi pareja”, ‘mi” meaning mine, she means the man in which she has a pareja. And to that woman “La Pareja Ideal” is the man who is sufficiently attractive, sufficiently capable, sufficiently social, and most importantly to a Colombian woman, has sufficient financial capacity. And she wants literally nothing to do with any man who is not “La Pareja Ideal”
So when she views this man as “La Pareja Ideal” she has good comportment, behavior, treatment, with respect of him and for him, and she shows the best of what men think of when they think of Latin women and how they treat their men.
When he is not, then she is a bitch, a shrew, a liar, a manipulator, cruel, using, and almost every other negative stereotype you can apply to women.
So I had set about a set of tests or observations of behavior in the early days of a relationship to determine if I was this man and to walk, without hesitation, if I was not. Most were based on behavior. Did she answer my calls? Was she overly late for dates or appointments? Did more than two nights go by without her pressing, literally pressing, to see me, among others. If I got bad answers to these questions, I walked. And I never once regretted walking prematurely. And on the contrary, I did regret not walking soon enough.
Rollo explain this in Manosphere terms as “Genuine Desire”
And manosphere terms have explained to me the duality of a woman’s attraction, looks and money.
I had come into the Manosphere with an emphasis on money as the relationship killing thing more than physical attraction. One of key items discussed over and over is that attraction is more important. That the death of attraction leads to all sorts of negative behavior in women.
I had also come to some other conclusions that were contrary to what I had believed 15 years ago. When I was searching for a partner, a life long mate, I had set education and job as key determinants of who I was going to pursue for relationships. Two people can carry the log better than one. Ideally I would find someone with a degree that earned close to my salary with prospects for the future. Seems like folly now. Today, I would never trust any woman that earns more than an income distribution of 65% me and 35% her.
So my rule is that, even after much Manosphere reading and understanding, still is and will always be;
“Never trust a woman that you do not have an economic pistol to her head.”
Staying with you has to be more economicly advantageous than leaving you, even with alimony and child support. Or she will, to quote Dalrock “Push the plunger and detonate the relationship”.
And that explains to me why the top income bracket has divorce numbers that are like like those in the 1950s at 15%, and the rest have the 50% numbers we all know to be so common.
And that explains to me why the FI steadfastly holds to the claim that “marriage makes you wealthier”, when in fact, it is probably more true to say that “wealthier makes you married”.
So this housework issue, once again, is another item that seems so important to men, that seems to be a major broadside against established tenets of the Feminine Imperative that got exposed, debunked, explained in Ev Pysch terms, and refuted.
And this will change exactly nothing.
So once again it is another thing that, once exposed, it has utility only to you as a man.
Take this “No housework. No sex” item as a symptom rather than a cause and a flag that her hypergamy is at work here, there is something about you, be it your looks, your personality, your grooming, or your money that is or has killed her attraction to you. How you address is up to your personal situation.
The take away from this post is that a Reframing will occur and you should accept it for what it is. No what what is said by men or by you, the Sunshine Mary quote hold true:
“It’s hopeless to try refute the FI, hun, save your breath. They’ve already voted on it and it’s part of the catechism now. ”
Despite what Chris Berman says about the Buffalo Bills, they are amateurs compared to the collective hamster of women. it is more true to say that ….
“Nobody circles the wagons like …..”
@ imnobody
I fully agree that women tend to rationalize their own immorality and want society to affirm their preferred modes of sin. I agree with this 100%. The extent to which they (or rather, we) are able to do this depends on the degree to which women are given power in the society at large. At present, women have a lot of power, so we get to have things “our way”. No doubt about it, and I’m definitely not blind to this at all, but it’s really just a concept that was already described (and described in a far clearer way) by 7man in his old post Team Woman.
The concept of the feminine imperative is now being used as if it were some independent third party. The feminine imperative does this, the feminine imperative does that – like it has a mind of its own. Dalrock isn’t the worst offender by any means, but look at how he even writes it:
The problem is, if any of the women try to take a critical look at the concept and raise any doubts or questions, we are immediately labelled as being blinded by our “feminine imperatives”. Any man who wants to criticize some of the sloppy usage of the term Feminine Imperative is labelled as being blinded by his servitude to the FI. There is no way anyone can even take a critical look at or evaluate it at this point.
Personally, I would have liked to continue to do so, but I will not because I’m only allowed to agree; if I disagree with any of it or have any questions, I’m told it’s because I want to continue enslaving men to the FI. And that’s a kind of twisted logic that it is pointless to attempt to refute.
@ Dalrock
Regarding my comment here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/rebuilding-the-mound/#comment-72347
Although I am expressing genuine frustration, on rereading that comment, it comes across as really disrespectful. Please accept my humble apology for that. I am sincere in my desire to understand the issues discussed here.
@Hollehund great points
@Novaseeker – as always – insightful commentary (BTW Thanks for bringing your blog back into life)
But I happen to disagree with you except about Dalrock’s most subversive statement is equating serial monogamy with promiscuity (which I couldn’t agree more) .
I used to think like you but now I think it goes deeper than the feminist movement removing the barriers against the female imperative and letting it overflow the culture (while the male imperative is still mostly restrained). I think the feminine imperative has dominated every culture in history, even the so-called “patriarchal”.
You say that “hard monogamy” (that is, one sexual partner for the whole lifetime) is a compromise between the male polygamy and the female serial monogamy. This is true but it is a compromise biased in favor of the female imperative.
Let’s think about European society before feminism (that is, before the second half of the XIX century). Hard monogamy was easy for the women. To begin with, they didn’t work so every man was somewhat alpha-ish to them. Since they had no prior sexual experience, their only man could be perceived by the woman as be more alpha-is hin the bed than the way the average Joe is perceived by his wife today. So society was built to accommodate female hypergamy. The vast majority of women got married and most women could have a reasonable chance to satiate her natural hypergamy by default.
What do we have at the other side of the gender divide? The natural polygamy of men was being given a valve of escape with prostitution, which was tolerated. But this is not equivalent to the way female hypergamy is treated in this traditional society. Prostitution was tolerated but despised: it went against God’s law and against good customs. Respectable men had to hide while going to the brothels, which were sordid places of squalor and illnesses.
In other words, women were respected and encouraged to follow their natural instincts. Men had to take risks and hide their natural instincts and were despised because of following them.
A novel like “Pride and prejudice” (some days ago was the 200-year anniversary) shows the heroine (Elizabeth Bennet) falling in love with a wealthy man (Mr. Darcy) and falling hard because he is wealthy and has an impressing estate. The turning point of this love story happens when Elizabeth visits Darcy’s estate (while Darcy is not there) and imagines herself being the mistress of this property. Then she realizes Darcy is a good man after all and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. When the engagement becomes public, a friend of Elizabeth congratulates her because she is going to be the mistress of this impressive estate. Full feminine imperative.
If the male imperative was given the same status in traditional society than the female imperative, we could have a novel where the hero (let’s call it “David”) was reluctant to consider a woman (“Helen”) to be his wife but he changes of mind when he realizes Helen has amazing boobs beneath the heavy clothing and she is willing to provide mistresses for him when they are married. A friend of David congratulates him because, by marrying, he has secured a steady supply of new mistresses.
A novel like this would have not been written and, if it had been written, David would have been an example of despicable behavior – a rake, a low-life.
Every society follows the feminine imperative, to different degrees. The patriarchy is a matriarchy in disguise. The XX century saw the change from a kind of matriarchy to another kind of matriarchy.
@ Dalrock
Now that the commenting has died down and posters have had their T bashing fun I will point this out.
Even though it would lead to less entertainment for your target audience, I really wish that when you quote my comments that you would quote the entire comment, including the part that contradicts the point that you are trying to make. I never claimed that “compliance is sexy.” in fact I point out that it is not. Here is one of the quotes that you used an excerpt from in its entirety.
@ dalrock – Shelia contradicts herself all the time. I’ve noticed that reading along and you’ve done a great job pointing out where I’ve missed it. However I do think that a husband who doesn’t do the stuff that she listed is likely to actually turn his wife off. Doing those things won’t guarantee that she is turned on and wants sex, because those things aren’t necessarily turn ons, but their absence will be problematic.
I make it quite clear that compliance with the list isn’t sexy. From what I understand about Alpha and Beta most of the things that Shelia listed are Beta skills needed for relationship comfort. They aren’t turn ons and obviously shouldn’t be sexual prereqs, but they are a necessary part of a functional relationship. Was this comment a reframe? You could call it that I guess. But since we’d already agreed that women shouldn’t withhold sex in marriage I don’t see why discussing this as well is a problem. I guess I should have just stuck to talking about how wrong Shelia Gregorie is?
Anyway, your blog is amusing as always.
Dalrock, check this out: lolzzlolzzzlolz.
And just for kicks let’s post a few more of my comments in entirety with a bit of context.
My comment about frivorce was a response to a poster who was asking why a man should keep a woman around
@ AR – “Why should he keep “herself” around? What’s she bringing to the homestead that he either can’t do for himself, or isn’t getting anyway?”
This is exactly the reason that many women “frivorce”. They look at their husbands, see someone who creates more housework than he does, doesn’t meet her emotional needs and wants sex while not being sexy. If she’s already going to work and dropping her kids off at daycare then he is also redundant.
Here’s the context of another comment
@ Jeremy “These things are not unreasonable. The attitude that specific social/economic/physical/mental conditions must be met for a woman to meet her mans needs or the wife gets unhappy is a completely unreasonable attitude.”
But a wife whose husband doesn’t do most of those things actually isn’t going to be happy. Although I agree that she shouldn’t withhold sex no matter how she feels, a husband who doesn’t do some of those things is a turnoff.
Clearly I was responding to Jeremy’s contention that being unhappy was an unreasonable response.
@ taterearl – “So if a man doesn’t do those things it will turn her off…if he does those things it probably won’t turn her on because they aren’t turn ons.
So tell me what’s the incentive?”
Not turning her off and being a good husband? Let me try and find an example that will work for you. I try not to nag. My lack of nagging isn’t a turn on to my husband but if I did nag it would be a turn off. Some of the stuff on Shelia’s list is like that.
I’ve clearly stated that compliance isn’t sexy repeatedly. I won’t bore you all by including the context of every single comment, but I will say that this blog post was one heck of a (re)frame job.
You say that “hard monogamy” (that is, one sexual partner for the whole lifetime) is a compromise between the male polygamy and the female serial monogamy. This is true but it is a compromise biased in favor of the female imperative.
Yes, and I don’t think we disagree on this.
It’s clear that the “balance” created by the dam isn’t an equal 50/50 one. It leans in favor of the female-variant. I think that is explained by the biological tilt in favor of women for reproductive reasons. That is a natural tilt that has always existed in all societies. The compromise that was the “dam” was the closest to 50/50 we’ve ever seen, buy I agree that it leaned female and was not 50/50.
This is not a bad thing, by the way. A society cannot be built around the male-variant as its basis, because hard polygyny, which is the extreme expression of the male variant, by its nature leads to massive warfare among males for sexual access due to their being a lot of sexual have-nots, which itself tends to retard societal development and lead to being overrun by competing tribes. The same is true for the female-variant in that a society cannot be built around it either, which is why our society (and the ones described in Unwin and Glubb) has its days numbered. As between them, it is more possible to build a society around the idea of monogamy (which runs against both, but harder against the male variant) based on assortative hierarchical pairings (which also runs against both, but harder against the female variant) than it is around less monogamy and less hierarchical pairings (which would be the male sexual utopia).
The compromise was not only a compromise between the male and female variants, but also, importantly, a compromise between the men, because the extreme expression of the male variant screws most men. So, yes, it’s always been a lopsided compromise, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
By “less hierarchical pairings” I mean “less asortatively hierarchical pairings” — in other words, a system which is less inclined to match 9s with 9s and more tolerant of non-monogamous pairings of M9s with F6s.
You say that “hard monogamy” (that is, one sexual partner for the whole lifetime) is a compromise between the male polygamy and the female serial monogamy. This is true but it is a compromise biased in favor of the female imperative.
You have male imperative,female imperative and I’ll add civilized imperative. Women have no agency in anything. I say hard monogamy is civilized imperative. Feral male behavior on a scale of what we have today with feminism will look like the arab muslum world or Somolia with thugs ruling.
Many things that seem to favor women is a deault due to civilized society. Making it “fair’ with assumed female agency we get females voting out civilized society for the feminine imperative.
Let’s not get to cute with the terms and equality. That is what got us here in the first place.
You say that “hard monogamy” (that is, one sexual partner for the whole lifetime) is a compromise between the male polygamy and the female serial monogamy. This is true but it is a compromise biased in favor of the female imperative.
You have male imperative,female imperative and I’ll add civilized imperative. Women have no agency in anything. I say hard monogamy is civilized imperative.
That’s certainly one way to describe the same thing, I agree. The “dam” is the civilized imperative, which is the compromise. It’s a compromise that is biased in favor of the women, but a compromise biased in favor of the men would not really lead to civilization — it would be, as you say, leaning towards Somalia. The slight preference for the females embedded in what you are calling the civilized imperative is slanted but is the best compromise that works to build and sustain civilization, and so it is a “good” slant, and really only a partial one anyway.
Every society follows the feminine imperative, to different degrees. The patriarchy is a matriarchy in disguise. The XX century saw the change from a kind of matriarchy to another kind of matriarchy.
correct
once modern (satanic) western cultures sold The People the idea that a “patriarchy” existed that “constantly oppresses females” it was all over except the Last War
our gynarchies insist that the 20th century shifted from patriarchy (evil oppressors) to an equalist society (fairness, no more oppression of women)
in truth, all empires have been matriarchal, tho the extremity of female supremacism only becomes fully visible in the last-stages of these empires (as it did in , say, rome and babylon uno)
the Bible affirms that a “woman” called the “great whore” (i.e. a fallen angel, but also females collectively) “sits over” the nations of this planet, and rules secretly
the trick was re-framing to the Boomers that this gyno-planet was instead an Evil Patriarchy, because duh, cant you see that Evil Males are the presidents and senators and corp execs? etc etc, “men have all the power” which was the First Lie, from which all others flowed
once that re-frame was hammered into the culture, and eventually accepted as truth, then the flood-gates to the gynogulag were wide open — because then, any malevolence done to any boy or man by any female — or any extension of the female, ie. the State and Church — is not only excusable and acceptable, it’s a GOOD thing! . . . because it “puts the male in his place” and “liberates women from their historical oppression”
even at this moment, the western nations are viewed as patriarchal, although every authentic masculine element of those cultures was already extinguished , fifteen or twenty years ago
perfect slavery is accomplished by convincing the slave that not only is he “free” but that in fact he is the slaveholder, then keeping him in an ongoing state of abject guilt, remorse, and constant recompense for crimes that he didnt commit — and, in fact, were committed against him, and against his brothers
financial, sexual, psychological, and other inducements are then offered to “good males” to keep the lie functioning, and to keep other males shamed, impoverished, and scapegoated
The male imperative is actually the defective male imperative. the 80 percent the average beta male is the guy that marries and has children. He is the guy that makes the world civilized and those men do exist in somolia. With out rule of law and checks on behavior we have the thug a defective man. This guy takes up arms kills and takes what he wants. Alpha’s are generally worthless except women strongly desire sexual relationships with such men. That is what makes them alpha. All other characteristics mean nothing. The apex fallcy based on who women find attractive causes the male imperative to be defined as it is as the way men are. The old all men are dogs line. (all men you find sexual arrousing and attractive are dogs the rest of them are invisible)
The male imperative will always take a back seat to the civilized imperative which infact is the red pill beta male imperative it is how a responsible and strong masculine man founded in christian faith rules.
OK, I got a Joke.
A New Yorker that lives in Manhattan finds a genie bottle. He rubs it, the genie appears and offers him one wish.
The New Yorker says he wants his very own private golf course right there in Soho.
The genie says “No way. Look at the all the people that would be displaced. And it would take entirely too much of my genie strength to remove all those houses and actually produce a golf course here in Manhattan. I would be laid up for 6 months just to recover. It is entirely too difficult, almost impossible. Choose something else.
The New Yorkers says “Well, I know the genie rules and if you can’t do my replacement wish then you must grant my original wish. So I wish that you could make my wife stop bitching at me about housework and that she always be agreeable, eager, and willing towards my sexual advances.”
The genie ask “How long have you been married?”
The man replies “15 years.”
The genie then asks “Could we hold it down to four Par 5 holes on that golf course?”
Pingback: Interlude: Pittsburgh and the Super-Norm
I have to say I have impressed with the quality and steadfastness of T’s reframing – she is indeed a fantastic example no only of female reframing but also, as others have mentioned, of many manosphere concepts. The dissecting of her comments has been fascinating and has useful application in the real world (for both men and women).
But no-one has really delved into the motivation behind T’s reframing. I will admit to reframing in the past (and I’m sure it will happen again in the future), but thinking back, in almost every case the reframing came from a sense of weakness, failure or shame; I HAD to reframe to save myself from pain or exposure. And I had to hold my frame and constantly reinforce it until I could extricate myself with my self-image intact. Very occasionally though I just did it for shits and giggles – when I did this though, it tended to be a one-time thing – I had my fun and moved on.
Anyway, gotta run, I think it might be T-time.
Again.
Dear Novaseeker:
The compromise was not only a compromise between the male and female variants, but also, importantly, a compromise between the men, because the extreme expression of the male variant screws most men. So, yes, it’s always been a lopsided compromise, but that’s a feature, not a bug
Once you see the process of history through the “they live” goggles, you realize that women are politically and socially meaningless. If only a tiny minority of men decided to quit putting up with female crap, the situation would change overnight; because female crapola is really just an extension of elitist crapola, designed to keep men paying for stuff they don’t need (weddings, mcmansions, divorce attorneys) in order to continue enriching society’s parasite class. Women lack the future time orientation to see the part they play, and they’re irrelevant anyway.
The only meaningful compromise was between men, and any lasting peace has to be brokered between men. Women are, in Napoleon’s words, just bits of machinery to produce more men.
Best, Boxer
The only meaningful compromise was between men, and any lasting peace has to be brokered between men. Women are, in Napoleon’s words, just bits of machinery to produce more men.
I strongly agree, which is why I wrote yesterday on my blog that the compromise can be collapsed to a compromise among men — both in our roles as sexual competitors as well as our roles as fathers of daughters and sons. Clearly this is what lies at the heart of the compromise, and what lies at the heart of its disintegration — intra-male relations.
Here’s a challenge, from Rich Zubaty’s writing:
Is it not true that religious laws have a lot to say about wives being obedient to their husbands? Why would you think every single religion on the earth, in every existent culture, including the 120,000-year-old aboriginal culture, has strictures regarding this? Is it possible that the cultures that never took steps to curb the raw ambition of their women are not around any longer? Don’t you imagine that some extinct culture in the last 120,000 years experimented with the total emancipation of women?
[emphasis mine; -not sure what exactly is special about 120,000 years]
So why is this crucial evolutionary lesson not as deeply ingrained in human nature as pedal-to-the-metal, pussy-rioting feminism is purported to be?
When the village turns into Sucksville, men can just pick up and leave, and hope to fend for themselves while looking for a better place on their own, much easier than child-burdened women can.
As neighborhoods decay, their sex ratio drifts towards a predominance of females, since it’s the males who flee the ghetto, leaving it to the sistas. Now, of course, the fems have Uncle Sugar Daddy to bail them out, but this was not true during our evolutionary past. The women would have known they were sitting ducks (for probably even worse men) if they drove all their own men away.
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
1. Lack of future time orientation in general, among men and women alike.
2. Lack of understanding the history — the actual history, as discussed in Unwin and Glubb. There are quite a few self-styled Christian “intaleckshuls” who are ignorant of what Unwin and Glubb have discussed, and who even dismiss this as being “buried for a good reason”, thereby embracing and aiding and abetting the “enlightened” intellectual criminals who did that in the first place.
Men are competitive, women are cooperative because they have to be to survive. The lean towards the “feminine” strategy is just a lean towards the cooperative strategy. So if it seems unfair to think of women getting their,way perhaps it wouldn’t be so if you thought of it as men cooperating with other men so more men get the goodies society offers.
This is one of the benefits of women being thought of as chattel. Nobody stresses that their chattel has it too good. Nobody feels emasculated when the chattel are fat and happy. Chauvinism for the win.
@ Morticia
“Men are competitive, women are cooperative because they have to be to survive. The lean towards the “feminine” strategy is just a lean towards the cooperative strategy. So if it seems unfair to think of women getting their,way perhaps it wouldn’t be so if you thought of it as men cooperating with other men so more men get the goodies society offers.”
Not entirely accurate. Women are cooperative against men in general. But they compete against one another for an individual man. Hence Alpha males, the men who are competed for by women, are able to get around the usual rules that apply to most men.
Any troll has the same two motives, though some care more about one motive than the other:
1. To derail the usual conversation of the group
2. To gain attention for itself
Since T has been able to derail discussions on two blogs recently (that I know of) and turn their energies toward talking about her, I’d have to say she’s a very capable member of the species.
mre donalgraeme: agree
@Novaseeker
Agreed. I guess we were talking about the same thing with different points of view.
I mean “with different words but the same meaning”.
I mean “with different words but the same meaning”.
Yep, but your words were good and helpful.
Thank you.
Since when have women been chattel?
Last time I checked chattel didnt sit around all day & popped out kids …
Chattel usually do stuff like back breaking labour, fight wars & die in the millions out of suicide PRECISELY because of being treated like chattel …
Women claiming to be treated like chattel is a sick joke to say the least …
MackPUA
The term chattel is one used to guilt beta males into looking the other way or into shooting themselves in the foot for feminism.
Mr. MackPUA..I think you misunderstand my argument. It is only because of egalitarianism that there is a sense of competition between male and female imperatives. If that competition did not exist then cooperation wouldn’t seem like a sacrifice, but rather something most men would advocate as being in their interest.
In other words..the female imperative would be irrelevant because men would do what was best for men as a whole and not just what is good for themselves or what is good for women. If it had anything in common with the female imperative it would be by coincidence, and not because men had any motivation to pander.
@greyghost
True, chattel is mainly used to cover up the fact women are the ones using men as chattel, & recruit white knights
Seriously if women want children, the logical thing to do, is women save up enough money so they can support their children …
But what do women instead?
They make a man fall in love with them, marry them & then force the man to pay for the children
Marriage PROVES women are parasites & use men as chattel
Now heres the thing …
Men knowing or unknowing theyre being used by women
They make the whole concept work, they make it work so well, the whole of society benefits as a greater good
What do women do?
They destroy the whole concept in 50 years, after getting the vote …
That right there is the difference between men & women, even in enslavement, even used as chattel & walking wallets, men STILL make society function
What do women do?
Women shame men, women call men rapists, for NOT retaliating against them AND for repairing the damage feminists have done to men & women
Are you seeing the pattern ?
It’s ironic how women use logic to cage themselves as victims, while men use logic to free themselves …
Well, that’s the thing, and why I’m saying I’m not on either side.
I don’t want women to be chattel. In fact, I believe in absolute equality. I proudly called myself a feminist, until I realized that the feminism of the day is the “men oppress us just by existing” via “male privilege” and “patriarchty” variety, so I’m disaffected.
So, the misogynists think I’m a mangina, and the feminists think I’m a misogynist.
Because I believe in equality, even when it doesn’t benefit men specifically, or women specifically.
Dalrock,
This post of yours was a useful lesson in the militant obsessive reframing that most modern women unconsciously employ. It was nice to see it all in one place.
That said, I believe that this “T” has served her function and I see no reason to engage with her, or devote additional posts to her, in the future. I also don’t see her as contributing at all to any discussion on this (or possibly any other) blog whatsoever, because of her militant yet unconscious reframe. She is, in a word, irredeemable (like most women).
I hope this is the last time you post about this self-absorbed woman. I hope you also take the appropriate actions to ensure she doesn’t disrupt the discussion again.
@morticia
Im well aware of your arguement …
I was referring to your use of the word chattel & you implying that women were used as chattel
This is some thing i’ve seen women use quite alot in the manosphere, throwing out feminist catchphrases & try to cover it up with talking like men in the manosphere
I caught Judgeybitch doing this exact thing over at AVFM, SSM & Elspeth pull this crap over here, to name a few …
Dont expect men not to fight back with some catchphrases of our own …. & yes we know it makes you tingle …
Dalrock, I appreciate your posts on maintaining frame and reframe. I’ve come to notice the reframe tactic more and more in conversations. I’ve found it is prevalent in political and religious discussions among men, not just from women, white knights etc.
One particular example is a conversation about the case of the LAPD shooting unarmed innocent people because they are nervous about whackadoodle Dorner. In the conversation, a man reframed the discussion of that action by comparing it to the relatively rare cases of military troops shooting innocent people before getting positive target ID and getting off without severe disciplinary action. The other man in question couldn’t answer any question about the morality of the LAPDs action without redirection and reframe.
TL;DR version:
Love the series of posts on reframe. It has sharpened me to be more aware of it in all sorts of places, not just sociosexual.
@Anon
LOL
What is the point of equality if it doesnt benefit anyone?
Let me remind you there’s NO such thing as equality, it does not exist …
Women have never been chattle, as theyre physically useless at being chattle … sex slaves dont build pyramids …
A sex slave is a cushy gig, compared to being whipped & having to drag large rocks in the middle of a desert …
In fact im pretty sure most cubicle drones would swap their crap career if it ever came up
Women are far too sensitive about the term “chattel”. I think its silly. Frankly, if I am half as well cared for as most men care for their cars then I have nothing to complain about.
But thats not the point. The point is that if you abandon egalitarianism then you don’t have to worry about women winning the gender war.
@mack
Well, my point is, I think “women should have control by letting patriarchial bible-literal men have the sex and the sammiches they demand, while still allowing themselves a conceited pat on the back about really being in control along with the rest of the hens” is no better than “women should have control by shaming men about ‘male privilege’ and insisting on wearing the pants in marriage.”
Of course, that’s basically the point of the MGTOWs, they see tradcons like Dalrock as no better than feminists, but that’s not me. For me, I think it’s just a matter of neither gender trying to be unevenly yoked with the other, hence equality, even when it’s lose/lose rather than win/win.
I once saw a documentary about how cats are the only animals to domesticate themselves. The narrators seemed to think it was a trick to get food and shelter. A grand scheme… act cute and maybe the humans won’t notice you are sleeping in their bed.
@T
You’re a worthless troll. Anyone reading that context can clearly see I wasn’t speaking of the response of being unhappy. Are you even capable of providing true context, or is your brain so warped around feminism that all you see is what you want to see?
Instead I was directly telling you that shirking marital responsibilities because you cannot control your emotions is childish and wrong. You may choose to reframe it all you will because you feel that your emotions trump any rational obligation to your partners needs.
Woe to your partner’s mental health later in life.
freebird says:
February 9, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Hehe.
Shades of “soup nazi.”
“No soup for you!”
On another thread on sunshinemary’s blog, I used the term “Coochie Nazi” since she had gone around spouting the line “no Coochie for you”…
@tbc
@feministhater
I’m understanding what your both getting at. However, You can’t be a Christian if you’d choose a 10 secular woman over a 5 Christian woman. And it doesn’t count if the 10 claims to be a Christian, or goes too church every Sunday. She has to be a real Christian. The 5 will be less attractive, but not repulsive. In fact, the third option is to remain celibate. So if you couldn’t stand to marry the Christian 5, then you should remain celibate. But since she is attractive, just not AS ATTRACTIVE, I think she’s a good choice. But she shouldn’t be called creepy our unattractive, or not your type. Because if she’s Christian, then she’s your “type”.
That’s what priorities mean. Something that few church girls have. They will ignore the obvious signs that he’s not a Christian, just because she fins him very attractive.
Attractive is a scale. Being a follower of Christ is binary
I must say it’s good to see the FI discussion actually being continued despite such logical rebuttals as “quack,quack.
I did not mention any names or handles,yet certain enforcers of the narrative stepped up to make the political personal.
Nice reframe by M,”disregading egalitarianism” as opposed to “never ending compromise and servitude to FI.”
One is noble,the other is not.
One is actually progressive (in the sense of being of tangible use to society) the other is not.
The FI has been here forever,just now ramped up by the feminist police state that has no problem violating mens basic human rights as laid out in the bill of rights.
Here’s a quote from 1800 years ago,to demonstrate there is nothing new under the sun.
(Except the calls/demands for silence,and massive abuse of the FI power)
“In rams and asses and horses, Cyrnus, we seek the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned therein to get him offspring of good stock; yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions, nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy, but is fain rather to be rich than to be good. For ’tis possessions they prize; and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good; race is confounded of riches. In like manner, son of Polypaus, marvel thou not that the race of thy townsmen is made obscure; ’tis because bad things are mingled with good.
– Theognis of Megara (183-192)”
(snark below)
Or we could just say “doesn’t exist,preposterous!,quackity,quack,DON’t TALK BACK
But hey,it’s less of a real fight for me due to being single,but the married men are slaves.(to the FI)
My only beef is with the man-raping legal system.
Just for fun @Grey
“no coochie for you,or soup!”
Meanwhile,back at the farm will find me “bitterly” clinging to gun and bible,because I refuse to pave the streets with the blood of my lost freedom so women can dominate men everywhere,I mean “be safe.”
Hopefully this link safe for work will be allowed as an example of how the FI has driven all manner of *exigent* social policy until there is no recourse except to push back.
This is what *attitude* looks like when you’ve pushed too far.
http://ogdaa.blogspot.com/2013/02/fuck-you-come-back-with-warrant.html
@Liberty
I don’t buy the No True Scotsman arguement.
The women that reject the Christian men are Christians themselves. It’s just that the majority of the single men at Church are very unattractive in any kind of traditional sense. The attractive qualities have been brainwashed out of them and the men with attractive qualities are either been run off or left. The men that she has to choose from are the equivalent of a 300 pound homely woman to a guy.
These women are still young people. They aren’t the wisest in the world. Just as in every other aspect of society, the gap between the winners and losers is growing into a dichotomy. Whereas before feminism, beta men were suitable due to being raised into conforming to traditional gender roles and behaviors, the beta men now are replusive to women. The obesity epidemic has the same effect on the females, many are unattractive candidates for marriage having blown up well before it’s acceptable.
When given the choice between being with a herb for the rest of their life and chasing the hot men, many women simply can’t resist the temptation. It’s not because they aren’t saved.
If all the women lost their fat and had a healthy BMI and all the men were trained to actually compete and not treat women like they are some special snowflake, a lot of problems would be solved. No longer would thin girls be treated like a glass of water in a dessert. Their insane entitled delusional attitudes would disappear overnight and only the actually beautiful could afford to do that. People would pair with their equals because it’s not a zero sum game anymore and beta men aren’t a death sentence.
FuriousFerret
All christian men should be taught game right along side the bible. Instead they are tuaght churchian pussy worship and that is a sexual turn off for a woman. There are no christian women a woman is christian upon submission to a christian man.
I was most struck by Morticia’s first sentence at 2.52pm ‘Men are competitive, women are cooperative because they have to be to survive’. I was thus thinking firstly of books 8 and 9 of Aristotle’s Ethics where he discusses friendship and where he suggests that the number of friends one can have must be limited; and likewise, Professor Dunbar who has calculated that the number of friends that one can have is no more than 5. I have long wondered whether both Aristotle and Dunbar are referring only to men, for it appears to me that with women the position is entirely different; women have hundreds of friends: two women only need to meet each other for them to become best-friends. Such is not the case with men, yet male freindship when formed tends to last longer. I wonder therefore whether Mortica or Sunshine Mary would care to comment on my supposition. Certainly, women seem to fall out with each other as quickly as they enter into friendships, and Facebook where every woman seems to have upwards of a thousand friends – that is to say well in excess of the Dunbar [optimum] number which is 150 – seems to support that observation
Opus- It is true we fall out rather easily, but if there is no other herd to join then we will make-up.
Right now in society there are many herds and many options.
Martian Bachelor and others, here is an excerpt* from “Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb.
“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. “What,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, “have the professions of clerk, tax collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.” Many women practiced law, while others obtained positions as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. The disorders following the military take-over in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy.
To call this “feminism” in the 1970’s second-stage sense, or even in the broader sense that has existed since the mid-19th century, just doesn’t work – there’s no way for the writings of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the latter half of the 19th century to have any causal effect upon Baghdad some 1,000 years earlier, absent a previously unknown method of time travel.
To observe that there are certain traits in female behavior that tend to run to excess when women have the illusion of unlimited resources, therefore, would be a better explanation. This explanation offer some degree of prediction as well, which the “it’s all Betty Freidan’s 1970’s feminism” does not.
I suspect that much of the resistance to the idea of a Feminine Imperative comes from latent pedestalization within men, and of course in women there is the imperative to appear “mysterious” and thus too hard to figure out, so… “stop trying to do so you silly man and just give me and my sisters what we want, right now…” and not necessarily at the conscious, deliberate level, either. Game tells me that women want certain things at a very basic, unconscious, level and are capable of a great deal of rationalization at a higher level in order to justify those wants. Why not the same phenomena, en mass?
Whatever it “is”, it “is” worth studying, if the past has anything useful at all to say to us.
*The book is not that big, it may exist as a PDF in the depths of the web and could thus be found by a diligent use of a search-engine, however it appears that the family of Sir John are zealous in their defense of copyright, and so rather than run the risk of having to hire Opus’s services, no doubt at ruinous rates, I shall limit myself to an excerpt that is defendable under the Fair Use clause of US law. And I won’t be posting any URL’s to repositories where the book can be found, either.
The women that reject the Christian men are Christians themselves.
I agree with Furious Ferret. Christians make conscious decisions to do the wrong thing all the time, to various degrees. Sometimes it’s a white lie, other times it’s to call in sick to work when they aren’t sick. And yes, it could be something as serious as choosing to marry an unbeliever.
It doesn’t mean they aren’t Christian. It could be that like the church at Corinth whom Paul wrote to: They are far too carnal and have a lot of growing to do, not to mention a lot of repenting.
@Ano9nymous Reader
Even I cannot afford my fees, and so I took the trouble to have a brief look at Sir John’s Monograph. It is certainly interesting and who can doubt that the fall of Empires is indeed related to the decline in religion, affirmative action for women, as well as mass immigration of aliens – one might almost think that Sir John was writing about England – surely not. I am, nevertheless in difficulty with his observation that Empires last no more than two hundred and fifty years, at least that would doubtless have been a great surprise to Muslim invaders waiting to attack Constantinople in 1453. What about The Chinese. Then again England has itself had a series of Empires of ever increasing size, despite regrettable and occasional setbacks (our loss of The American Colonies for instance).
For those saying women have many more friends than men this is not true. I have six sisters, two daughters, and have had four wives. I have up close personal experience watching the manipulations within the herd. I read a quote on a blog recently (maybe this one) that said women can not have friends because they all play by Highlander rules, “In the end there can be only one.” Truer words were never written. Women have no friends; at least they have no friends in the manner to which men have friends. Men will fight and die for their friends. Men will sacrifice their own best interests in favor of the team or group goal. Women will not. For women it is strictly who serves their interests at the moment, or who will lift their status in the herd. Every day I take the Hebrew morning prayer to heart, “Thank you God that I was born a man.” No matter the hardships and insesent demands put on men by society, I still am gratful not to be a woman.
Mortica is right. After dropping out with some members of the herd they will seek out another herd. If none is available they will mend fences, because a place in the herd is everything. In Evo Psych terms in the hunter gather pahse of human existance, the vast majority of our species’s existance, women depended on the herd to survive. Individual men came and went, but the herd provided and protected. Look at all herd mammals. The herd is almost all female with just enough males to breed and protect.
Ask yourself this….do friends hold each other accountable? And how?
its enough to be said.
@divermike, that must explain why we get things like “It tales a village”
@ Cadders says: February 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I have to say I have impressed with the quality and steadfastness of T’s reframing – …But no-one has really delved into the motivation behind T’s reframing.
It’s a form of manipulation and evasion in an effort to always be right – as in the pursuit of pleasure (being right) and avoiding pain (being wrong). It’s not strictly a female behavior either, as covert-aggressive people are characterized by similar behavior – when questioned about something, they reframe the issue / question and then use the reframe against their “attacker”. Such people always have something to excuse their mis-steps while having all kinds of plausible reasons to attack others.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/11/19/covert-aggressive-personality/
Apologies: @Mikediver
@Anonymous Reader
This historical fact of which feminism ruined the islamic society is the reason for sharia law.
The weakness of Patriarchy as one person theorized is its vulnerability to the FI:
@ T says: February 10, 2013 at 10:37 am
There is no objective standard of creepy, so the woman is forced to use her own perspective. If she finds most men creepy then this may be a personal problem that she needs to address. However if she only finds a few men creepy then there’s no reason for her to make any changes.
If most women find a certain man creepy, chances are the problem is him. Before he assumes it is a problem of perception on her end he needs to make sure that there isn’t something that he’s doing that is giving the creep impression. I see that you “red pill” men address that by telling men to improve their appearance and work on their social skills.
The single biggest issue I have with you T is you state something, get called on it, and then change your story.
Second, you stated that a guy was creepy because a woman said he was. You did not say that that was just her perspective of him.
Finally, how’s a man going to find out if he’s doing something to give the “creep” impression if the girl with the impression doesn’t somehow communicate that to him? He may not even know something’s wrong and has been blissfully going about his business, while the woman in question with-holds this information that’s of utmost and vital importance…..in short, you’re giving the guy the ‘creep’ shaft because he’s not a mind-reader!
Now, how about you write about what the woman’s responsibility is in all this instead of continually putting it all on the men?
Ooops – messed up on my HTML’ing – hopefully someone can fix it for me. 🙂
@ANO – Now, how about you write about what the woman’s responsibility is in all this instead of continually putting it all on the men?
I don’t think that a woman has any responsibility to a stranger. Most women are managing to find men that they don’t see as creepy to date and marry. If a woman finds a man creepy then she will feel uncomfortable around him and not be inclined to discuss the reason with him. I know that I try to get away from creepy men with as little interaction as possible. Creepy men (or we can say men that are seen as creeps from the woman’s perspective) are pretty much stuck with the problem.
What do you think a woman should do when she encounters a creepy man?
Please stay away from the creepy men
Guys, it’s time to become MGTOTW (Men Going the Opposite of T’s Way). Seriously. Enough with feeding the taunting trollette. She has taken herself out of our discussion, and we keep following her. I believe we’re better than that.
infowarrior1
February 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm
That video was and is awesome that guy vision of the future with a male pill is dead on. The male birth control pill is the MRM. When men decide when they will be fathers reguardless what action a woman takes or even decides to tell a woman when she can have a child attitudes change real fast.
Also I do not see a return to the mithical patriarchy. One of the luckiest guys I know is a father of three 2 girls and a boy have his wife leave with a friend of his. he has his kids and wife is gone. Lucky Mutha fucka. I wouldn’t cry one day If I was so fortunate. Women have jumped the shark and have made themselves only worth a booty call. Once men can have children outside of womens concent or control it will be interesting to see where women go and what they do.
“Also I do not see a return to the mithical patriarchy. One of the luckiest guys I know is a father of three 2 girls and a boy have his wife leave with a friend of his. he has his kids and wife is gone. Lucky Mutha fucka. I wouldn’t cry one day If I was so fortunate. Women have jumped the shark and have made themselves only worth a booty call. Once men can have children outside of womens concent or control it will be interesting to see where women go and what they do.”
I am a deeply religious Christian, but I must confess I fantasize about this. If it was just me and the kids, I think I would be in heaven. Even still, I pray things get better.
It isn’t feminism. It’s something else.
No, it’s definitely feminism. Divorce, contraception, abortion, affirmative action. All those feminist issues are about ONE thing. Enabling female promiscuity. Which today exists under the guise of “serial monogamy.” Does anyone seriously believe most “serially monogamous” women are “faithful”? I sure as hell don’t.
The fact that feminists don’t put the real motivation front and center is just typical of women not being straightforward.
@ unwobblingpivot says: February 11, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Guys, it’s time to become MGTOTW (Men Going the Opposite of T’s Way). Seriously. Enough with feeding the taunting trollette. She has taken herself out of our discussion, and we keep following her. I believe we’re better than that. I agree. Since it’s all men’s fault, and women have no responsibility for anything while their very thoughts are law – regardless of whether they actually say anything or not – I must bow to her superior …oh wait, what am I saying?
Time for the beer-t-dote.
or – read what M3 had to say on the subject…
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/turning-down-a-niceguyljbf-the-proper-way/
@ANO @ unwobblingpivot says: February 11, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Guys, it’s time to become MGTOTW (Men Going the Opposite of T’s Way). Seriously. Enough with feeding the taunting trollette. She has taken herself out of our discussion, and we keep following her. I believe we’re better than that. I agree. Since it’s all men’s fault, and women have no responsibility for anything while their very thoughts are law – regardless of whether they actually say anything or not – I must bow to her superior …oh wait, what am I saying?
Time for the beer-t-dote.
It’s not about women’s thoughts being law. Say there’s an unattractive woman that never gets hit on. Are uninterested men responsible for telling her why they find her unattractive or for changing their perceptions of her or is it her problem to fix?
Finally something I don’t find thoroughly objectionable and therefore will engage with:
@T
“It’s not about women’s thoughts being law. Say there’s an unattractive woman that never gets hit on. Are uninterested men responsible for telling her why they find her unattractive or for changing their perceptions of her or is it her problem to fix?”
No disagreement. Let the marketplace teach him/her. What I believe most guys in the man sphere object to is when a women gives advice that is the opposite of what he needs to hear and that will make him less masculine and put the creepy/pathetic meter through the roof. It’s the equivalent of a man telling a woman to be more feminist and disrespectful of men. Note: none of us have done that with you (hint hint).
@ Unwobblingpivot No disagreement. Let the marketplace teach him/her. What I believe most guys in the man sphere object to is when a women gives advice that is the opposite of what he needs to hear and that will make him less masculine and put the creepy/pathetic meter through the roof. It’s the equivalent of a man telling a woman to be more feminist and disrespectful of men. Note: none of us have done that with you (hint hint).
I don’t think that most women give that kind of advice intentionally. Most women mention things that they like in men that they are already attracted to. They are telling him what to do with a woman who is attracted to them, not how to attract a woman.
But most women aren’t advising creepy men in the first place. They are just trying to get away from him.
@T, when you go bowling, does your ball often jump into the adjacent lane? Just wondering…
Slightly off-topic realization I’ve come to:
Women telling men that they like nice guys is like guys telling girls that they like gamer chicks. Both of the advice-giving parties make the mistake of assuming that attraction is already nailed, and then they ask themselves how they wish attractive members of the opposite sex acted.
“Be a nice guy” is probably good advice for Harley McRockbanddrummer. But lobbing it at dudes is like guys complaining to girls that “I wish I could just find a cool girl who’ll sit around and play Call of Duty with me.”
The second happens less because the average dude is more attracted to the average girl than vice versa, and it’s more obvious to him. It’s hard to mistake what you’re attracted to when you have a body part to point the way.
Upon further reflection, there is something worth responding to here:
@T
“I don’t think that most women give that kind of advice intentionally. Most women mention things that they like in men that they are already attracted to. They are telling him what to do with a woman who is attracted to them, not how to attract a woman”
If a woman is attracted to me, I don’t want *anyone* telling me what to do, least of all a/the woman. Any woman who would try that has disqualified herself. If a woman is attracted to me, she should show respect to let me know it and see if I respond or not. End of story. Otherwise, it’s my initiative. And all the glorious risk that goes with it.
No, it’s definitely feminism. Divorce, contraception, abortion, affirmative action.
There was divorce and abortion in Rome. How did feminism, which did not exist until sometime after 1850, influence women back in 300 AD? Time machine?
AR, the word is only as historically limited as you make it. If you’d said ancient Rome (et al) had suffered an attack of the cancer of feminism, I’d known exactly what you meant.
In his reply to wife Abigail’s famed “Remember the Ladies” letter, John Adams used the term Despotism of the Petticoats, should we repeal our “masculine systems”. We have, and that’s what we’ve got.
Bravo sierra on that psychologizing about pedestals, etc.
Here’s the issue: if feminism is fatal to a culture and leads to its extinction, then the impulse for it to arise and assert itself should be bred out of the population of cultures over many iterations.
The “imperative” claim seems to be that this can’t ever happen, that the wimmenz (and their lobby) is so powerful they will always carry the day, which is the essence of pedestalization in at least some sense.
It’s not about women’s thoughts being law. Say there’s an unattractive woman that never gets hit on. Are uninterested men responsible for telling her why they find her unattractive or for changing their perceptions of her or is it her problem to fix?
Women thoughts being law is what all of this is about. If womens thoughts were not law I wouldn’t give fuck what the hell any woman thought about anything. There wouldn’t be a manosphere.
@ T says: February 11, 2013 at 9:10 pm
It’s not about women’s thoughts being law. Say there’s an unattractive woman that never gets hit on. Are uninterested men responsible for telling her why they find her unattractive or for changing their perceptions of her or is it her problem to fix?
There you go again, dodging the question and making it about the men! Because what I’ve written is exactly what you’ve said so far – “she” decides if he’s (objectively) creepy (and therefore engages in a form of abuse right there). He’s supposed to magically discern this condition even though she may not’ve said a word, and then he’s supposed to (in a mysterio-the-mindreader way) fix it – all while “she” is actively avoiding him.
And what is his reward if he actually “fixes” whatever the problem is? The company of a woman who requires him to read her mind or he’s in trouble and doesn’t know why because she doesn’t see the need to communicate with him? Based on what you’ve written, it’s a no-win situation for the guy, so why should he care if a “woman” finds him “creepy.” It’s actually better for him since he won’t have to deal with all the “you didn’t read my mind and now you’re in trouble” drama that’s sure to follow!
And to answer your question – lots of men have told unattractive women what works. I’ve even had “how to catch a guy” conversations with some girlfriends (of other guys) because the girls – who liked their guys – were screwing things up with their attitude and behavior, so when I told them what worked, they ate it up (“Nobody ever told me this before.”). The problem today is, instead of women following men’s advice, they’re listening to what other women and feminists say women should be like and ignoring the guys they could’ve built a solid life together with, or even “throwing rocks” at them by calling them names like “creepy”.
And then they wonder why they’re still single as they get older, their MMV is on the decline, and all the male attention they used to get isn’t happening any more….
Funny that.
@ unwobblingpivot says: February 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm
If a woman is attracted to me, I don’t want *anyone* telling me what to do, least of all a/the woman. Any woman who would try that has disqualified herself. If a woman is attracted to me, she should show respect to let me know it and see if I respond or not. End of story. Otherwise, it’s my initiative. And all the glorious risk that goes with it.
The thing is, if a woman’s got some serious girl game, she will tell you what works. You just won’t know she’s doing it because it’ll be subtle, indirect, and a hundred little things leading you in the right direction like any good prey would do. It won’t be an in-your-face “do this” line like a guy would do.
This is where the “He chased me until I caught him” line comes from.
@T
I think you’re absolutely right. And you’re such a beautiful person. I think we might be soulmates. I’m so sorry for how I’ve treated you. Please forgive me for not realizing what a wonderful snowflake you really are.
When you delayed responding to my post, I got really scared and thought you had left us for good. I even cried. I really want to work on or relationship, because i never meet a woman as snowflaky as you are, and I think my days as a loser creepy guy are over, because I finally found you.
Please don’t ever leave this blog. I think i would kill myself if you did. I will check in every ten minutes to see if you respond to this.
@ANO
“The thing is, if a woman’s got some serious girl game, she will tell you what works. You just won’t know she’s doing it because it’ll be subtle, indirect, and a hundred little things leading you in the right direction like any good prey would do. It won’t be an in-your-face “do this” line like a guy would do.”
Yep.
As comedian Steven Wright says, “There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot”.
Which goes for both sexes, each in their own way.
@ANO
There you go again, dodging the question and making it about the men! Because what I’ve written is exactly what you’ve said so far – “she” decides if he’s (objectively) creepy (and therefore engages in a form of abuse right there). He’s supposed to magically discern this condition even though she may not’ve said a word, and then he’s supposed to (in a mysterio-the-mindreader way) fix it – all while “she” is actively avoiding him.
I realize that he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. But random women who don’t find him attractive are not going to help with that, nor do they have any obligation to do so.
And what is his reward if he actually “fixes” whatever the problem is? The company of a woman who requires him to read her mind or he’s in trouble and doesn’t know why because she doesn’t see the need to communicate with him? Based on what you’ve written, it’s a no-win situation for the guy, so why should he care if a “woman” finds him “creepy.” It’s actually better for him since he won’t have to deal with all the “you didn’t read my mind and now you’re in trouble” drama that’s sure to follow!
The reward for fixing the problem is that other women will be attracted to him. Once a woman has decided that you are a creep there usually isn’t any way to recover in her eyes anyway so he probably won’t have to deal with any kind of drama from her.
And to answer your question – lots of men have told unattractive women what works. I’ve even had “how to catch a guy” conversations with some girlfriends (of other guys) because the girls – who liked their guys – were screwing things up with their attitude and behavior, so when I told them what worked, they ate it up (“Nobody ever told me this before.”). The problem today is, instead of women following men’s advice, they’re listening to what other women and feminists say women should be like and ignoring the guys they could’ve built a solid life together with, or even “throwing rocks” at them by calling them names like “creepy”.
And then they wonder why they’re still single as they get older, their MMV is on the decline, and all the male attention they used to get isn’t happening any more….
Funny that.
Most women are not having any problem finding noncreepy guys to marry. If a woman is having a problem then she may need to change her perspective. I agree that in general men give better dating and relationship advice than women.
Martian Bachelor:
AR, the word is only as historically limited as you make it
The problem with that is pretty obvious: the word has a definition, it has a meaning, and that definition / meaning is bound up with cultural, legal and social movements over the last 150 years or so. To attempt to force a much broader definition invites a round of “what’s the word mean?” on a par with the debate over Game.
. If you’d said ancient Rome (et al) had suffered an attack of the cancer of feminism, I’d known exactly what you meant.
And others would immediately leap to the argument, insisting that what afflicted Rome was not “real” feminism, but something else…
In his reply to wife Abigail’s famed “Remember the Ladies” letter, John Adams used the term Despotism of the Petticoats, should we repeal our “masculine systems”. We have, and that’s what we’ve got.
Yes. So? How did this come to be? What mechanisms drove the culture in one direction and not the other? Feminism is a political movement, I can see someone immediately pointing out how Abigail Adams was not a suffragette, and therefore not a feminist, and so feminism can’t be a bad thing, blah, blah.
I’m reminded of what Mark Twain said about the number of legs the typical dog has…
Bravo sierra on that psychologizing about pedestals, etc.
The amount of flak thrown up over the existence of the FI suggests otherwise. People don’t get that emotional over an idea if it does not make them uncomfortable for some reason or other.
Here’s the issue: if feminism is fatal to a culture and leads to its extinction, then the impulse for it to arise and assert itself should be bred out of the population of cultures over many iterations.
When you write “should”, are you using that word in the sense of a instruction, such as “The Army Corps of Engineers should keep the Mississippi river from flooding New Orleans”, or are you using it in an evolutionary sense? EIther way, I don’t see how you can make this statement in a serious manner. Sure, men “should” keep their civilization in working order; history tells me they do that, for a while, and then things go off of the rails. I don’t see any evolutionary mechanism that would work; the r vs. K reproductive strategies have a lot to do with this.
The “imperative” claim seems to be that this can’t ever happen, that the wimmenz (and their lobby) is so powerful they will always carry the day, which is the essence of pedestalization in at least some sense.
Some yeasr, the MIssissippi river has so much water flowing in it that the levees and other flood control structures are overcome, leading to farmland, towns, and even cities being flooded. That doesn’t mean that the river can’t be controlled most of the time, nor does it mean hat there’s no use in trying to do so.
@ Liberty I think you’re absolutely right. And you’re such a beautiful person. I think we might be soulmates. I’m so sorry for how I’ve treated you. Please forgive me for not realizing what a wonderful snowflake you really are.
When you delayed responding to my post, I got really scared and thought you had left us for good. I even cried. I really want to work on or relationship, because i never meet a woman as snowflaky as you are, and I think my days as a loser creepy guy are over, because I finally found you.
Please don’t ever leave this blog. I think i would kill myself if you did. I will check in every ten minutes to see if you respond to this.
LOL. Thank you for acknowledging my snowflaky beauty. I accept your apology.
As comedian Steven Wright says
Told my wife she can buy the real poo, stop buying the sham-poo……
Say there’s an unattractive woman that never gets hit on. Are uninterested men responsible for telling her why they find her unattractive or for changing their perceptions of her or is it her problem to fix?
In the circumstance to which you refer, the surface impediments usually require no explicit reference. It is just that it is difficult to address certain problems and generally rude to point them out.
@infowarrior1
The weakness of Patriarchy as one person theorized is its vulnerability to the FI:
Exactly. Some days ago, I was reading an obituary in “The Economist” about Beate Sirota Gordon, the woman who drafted the article 24 in the Japan Constitution, which states that women and men are equals under the law (the old trick of feminism: demand equality in the areas it suits you while maintaining the privilege in the areas you have always dominated).
You have it here:
http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21569350-beate-sirota-gordon-interpreter-japan-americans-died-december-30th-aged-89-beate
This paragraph made me think:
The Japanese negotiators hated Article 24. But because they liked her, and because they were told that “Miss Sirota’s heart is set on this” (with no word of the fact that this mere girl had also written it), they acquiesced. And so, to her astonished satisfaction, history was made.
So you have old Japan, an ancient patriarchal civilization with a patriarchal ideology. Logically, Japanese negotiators have been raised in a patriarchal environment and are fiercely patriarchal. This is why they hated Article 24.
But they acquiesce and change all the structure of a millenary society only to please ONE woman. Only because they know a woman that liked this article. Had this woman at least a position of power? Was she a queen or a minister? Nope. Was she a wife or a mistress of the Japanese negociators? No way. She was only a secretary. She was nice to the Japanese negotiators. But they changed the patriarchal structure of the Japanese society only to please her.
Talk about the power of the pussy. The patriarchy ends when men follow their natural tendency to please women no matter what are the consequences.
What do you think a woman should do when she encounters a creepy man?
There is no answer to your question because you are not referring to a coherent concept.
@Empathological
Or better yet..No Poo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_poo
There may not have been ideological feminism as we consider it in ancient times, just as there wasn’t ideological Communism (although there were movements with similar principles). However there was a gradual change in customs that led to a fatal moral weakening.
Pingback: The Mother of (Re)Invention «
@ imnobody says: February 12, 2013 at 10:07 am
But they acquiesce and change all the structure of a millenary society only to please ONE woman. Only because they know a woman that liked this article.
Having read the article, that’s not what happened – she was part of a group tasked with coming up with a constitution in a _single_ week, and as a women, they asked her to address the “women’s rights” part of the constitution. She did her research using other country’s constitutions, and drew on her experience living in Japan, and how badly Japanese women were treated. With that information, she made a number of proposals, of a number of which were thrown out, and some – like article 24 that guaranteed equal treatment under the law – being kept.
If men think they have it bad with feminism now, just look at the lot Japanese women had back then! Lord have mercy!
Everything a man experiences, every social conditioning he receives from the earliest age, every accepted social norm and every expectation of him to qualify as the definition of a mature adult Man in contemporary society is designed to serve the female imperative. Moralist wallow in it, absolutists and defeated white knights existentially depend upon it, and even the better part of relativists still (often unwittingly) feed and serve the feminine purpose. In fact, so all encompassing is this reality that we define our masculinity in the terms of how well we can accommodate that feminne influence.
Our media celebrates it, and brooks no dissent. There is very little dissent, since to peel back the veneer is to be at odds with a reality defined by the female purpose. You feel lonely because you can’t understand it’s influence, and the conditioning you’ve been subjected to defines the objective solution to curing that feeling. You base the decisions of your future, your education, your career, your religious beliefs, even where you’ll choose to live, to better accomodate the feminine influence either in the present or in preparation of accommodating it in the future.
You get married, out of fear for not being found acceptable of it, or from social shame for not yet having accepted your role in service to the imperative. Your children are offered in tribute to it, while in turn you unknowingly perpetuate it in them. You pay tribute in alimony, in divorce proceedings, in the expected sacrifices your career demands to maintain its influence in your own life and in society at large. You exist to facilitate a feminine reality.
We can excuse it with moralisms, we can attach notions of honor and stability to it, we can even convince ourselves that the feminine imperative is OUR own imperative, but regardless, men still serve it.
For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one. From this flows the rules of engagement for dating / mating, operative social conventions used to maintain cognitive dominance, and laws and legalities that bind society to the benefit of the feminine. From this is derived men’s default status as the ‘disposable’ sex, while women are the protected sex. It’s this root that the imperative uses to excuse (not apologize for) the most blatant inconsistencies and atrocities of women.
Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality.
In order to effect this reality men must be convinced of a degree of more control than the feminine imperative exerts. They must believe that it is they who are the masters of a reality defined by the feminine, while remaining dependent upon the systems that the feminine reality outlines for them. So they are told they are Kings, brutes, savages, patricians, intellectuals, anything that might convince them that the reality they exist in is privileged and expressly serves their purpose. Already the ‘protected sex’, this all encourages the default presumption of victimhood for the feminine.
The crowning irony of the feminine reality is that men should be accused of patriarchy while enabling the very framework of the feminine imperative. The feminine sexual strategy is victorious because even under the contrived auspices of male oppression, it’s still the female goal-state that is agreed upon as the correct effort. Satisfying the feminine imperative, achieving the ends of the feminine sexual strategy is still the normative condition. Men’s goals are aberrant, women’s are beatific.
Forgive me if I’ve waxed a bit too poetic here, but it’s important to see the Matrix for what it really is. The next occasion you lock horns with even the most well-meaning woman’s (or mangina’s) opinions about life, relationships, marriage, having babies, religion, etc. understand that her perceptions are based in this reality. She’s correct because her beliefs line up with what the framework of her reality reinforced in her as correct. Any other frame of reference is either utterly alien to her at best, wicked and evil at worst.
Morticia says:
February 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm
———————————
“…if you thought of it as men cooperating with other men so more men get the goodies society offers.”
Men “GET” the goodies?!?!?!
Men MAKE the goodies.
Rollo,
Should you read the Bible objectively, it is readily apparent that God warns repeatedly of this very same thing. The nature of women is clearly spelled out for those willing to hear it. The dangers of serving the FI are evident.
I don’t know what Bible Christian women are reading if they don’t come away from it with a very red pill/matrix understanding that everything they have been taught and told and even understood instinctively are the very things that need to be rejected in order live a life pleasing to God.
Hear’s a thought, don’t give a toss what women think. Just ask: “Do you want to go out?” If she says no, give her the bird and move on. Don’t change or do anything for a woman. Improve who you need to be, don’t spend your time worrying about reading the minds of bitches.
Improve who you are by being fit, eating right, engaging your mind and your spirit. If the woman doesn’t like that, who gives a fudge, move on. Life’s too short to worry about callous bitches and being called ‘creepy’.
Sarah’s Daughter, you’ll get no argument from me.
@A Northern Observer
Meh. I also read the article and everything you say is unrelated to my point. After everything you say, the (patriarchal) Japanese negotiators were still against article 24 but they acquiesced only to please ONE woman.
Rollo, well put.
“Men are competitive, women are cooperative because they have to be to survive. The lean towards the “feminine” strategy is just a lean towards the cooperative strategy. So if it seems unfair to think of women getting their,way perhaps it wouldn’t be so if you thought of it as men cooperating with other men so more men get the goodies society offers.”
1. Men compete to build and create products and services that other people want.
2. Women cooperate only to serve their personal interes, or when the image of team woman is threatened.
3. The feminint strategy is to coop, steal and divert. There is no innovation. Just envy in motion.
4. Society is what passes for culturally acceptable cooperation. ‘Society’ has no goodies to steal.
Redistribution: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Welcome to the feminine imperative. A Marxist will be with you shortly.
@An Observer:
Welcome to the feminine imperative. A Marxist will be with you shortly.
LOL!
Soma
It helped a brave world, why not ours
Empath,
Aka mobile affirmation devices… The I-soma.
Now with added vacuousness.
empathalogicalism:
FaSomaBook…
Hmm. I don’t see what was so very wrong with Sheila’s original article. Its was directed at men. She says you can only change yourself, not your partner, and these X things are things you (men) can do to improve your relationship. Of course, there had better be a lot of things that women can do to improve their relationships in other articles, because women have more control over relationships in general. But that was not the point of this article.
I could see objections to the ‘do chores for her’ since there have been studies that a 50/50 chore divide leads to less sex, not more. But making sure you both get in bed at a reasonable hour is a good idea to avoid exhaustion.
She could probably better serve men with advice about who to marry in the first place (someone who is not self-centered, someone who is generally satisfied with life, someone who is grateful for gifts and favors an doesn’t expect them, etc.), but that was also not the point of this article.
The pictures of the two beaches do a fine job of illustrating what we should all ‘want’ our sexuality to look like and what we should ‘not want’ it to look like. Of course, sometimes you ARE sick, or tired, or uncomfortably pregnant. That is just human life. It’s just a good idea to aim to be a place of comfort and warm sexuality for your spouse. I don’t really think there are many husbands who don’t understand that.
Pingback: Deflation | Dalrock
I just wanted to point out that the concept of emotion to logic conversion in this post, a throwaway line at the end, is practically a rosetta stone.
Pingback: Vox explains Dalrock’s Law | Dalrock
I love it! “A Marxist will be with you shortly.”
Pingback: The Cult Of The Victim | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Ask not for whom the hamster spins, it spins for thee. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Dr. Helen is disturbing the mound. | Dalrock
FI = ‘everything is all about them’.
The concept doesn’t require convoluted elaboration. That is unnecessarily complicated and may well be a case of making the language nice for the gals or playing by their rules of rhetorical gymnastics and obfuscation.
Pretty everyone eventually understands ‘its all about them’… whether they admit it or not. What really maters is how long does one live on their knees once they wake up, if they will stop being a slave and the consequences of escaping from the plantation.
Pingback: Revisiting The Used Car Lot | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: He was unhaaaaappy. | Sunshine Mary
Sunshine Mary’s pingback to to this post is the height of irony, as her post is the perfect example of rebuilding the mound. It is a response to this statement made by Deti on another site:
I think women get upset at the proposition that their love is based on opportunism, i.e. what he does for her, because it reveals that her love for a man is conditional. This in turn causes her to confront the reality that she just might be as shallow and utilitarian as she accuses the men in her life of being.
She starts out making the not all women are like that (NAWALT) argument, and then builds to her conclusion that not ANY woman are like that, because all women are capable of loving their husbands for non-utilitarian reasons. Apparently, being capable of not being like that equates to actually not being like that.
Pingback: Scary reality: my response to Amanda Marcotte’s criticism of my essay. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: the Revision Division
Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Headship Game. | Dalrock
Leaving aside the question of the truth of this claim, please explain the moral difference between serial polygamy and serial monogamy.
Pingback: Slow your roll | Dalrock
Pingback: Does Fornication Matter When It Comes To Marriage? | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Appearance matters | Something Fishy
Pingback: Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man. | Dalrock
Pingback: New comment policy | Dalrock
Pingback: “Enhanced Whack-A-Mole”: An Anti-Terror Strategy for Trump – Jackson Gazette
Pingback: Links to posts for Christian husbands. | Dalrock
Pingback: Hysteria. | Dalrock