Sickening | MGTOW

[–]BeyondTheLight17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I think it's a simpler thing: guys who are "in love" (i.e. infatuated) simply don't listen... to anyone.

So attempting to "explain" things -- simply doesn't and won't work -- the infatuation is basically a "fantasy" construct within the guys mind, and since he is in control of that fantasy, he constructs it in the manner that he wants (which generally includes a massive dose of "she's different | she's not like that | you don't understand" and other assorted bullshit, etc.)

In my experience the only way guys who are so "infatuated" get disabused of it, is for that "bubble" to be "popped" by some personally witnessed (and generally over-the-top) physical evidence that the particular "she" is NOT an exception -- and for her to be revealed with "true colors" regarding her actual motives/behavior pattern, etc -- doesn't necessarily need to be real-time and first-person (although that is obviously the most shocking), it can be video/photos, etc.

But no amount of logic, reason or discussion can "burst" that delusional bubble.

[–]BeyondTheLight-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

That is just a social construct.

Oh gawds... not that post-modernist bullshit.

Staying with a woman and being "deeply in love" that is.

Nope, it's a self-induced delusion.

A man has more to gain (biologically), when he just sleeps around and spreads his 'seed' around.

Yeah I've heard the line -- far too many times -- and I emphatically disagree. Humans (at least homo sapiens) are not "cats" -- of course there are many two-legged hominids walking around that look like they are "homo sapiens", but fundamentally speaking I don't think they actually are.

Technically speaking a man gains virtually ZERO benefit from "spreading his seed around".

Men are the real gatekeepers of commitment and women the gatekeepers of sex. Generally seen that is.

Men are the constructors of civilization. Women are the consumers & beneficiaries of it.

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

What I was trying to say is that biology almost always kicks in. You can only suppress it so much. Otherwise we wouldn't pull half the useless bullshit we pull off most of the time. I might be a little pessimistic/realistic, but I don't really think that highly of humans. We really have those urges. We just suppress it to the point that it doesn't look like it. And you are totally right men have 0.000000 benefit from sleeping around in our society. That is when you think about it logically. We are with 7billion other people on the world. What difference would it make if you and I just vanished? Virtually nothing as others would (gladly) take over our place. That spreading your 'seed' only applies, when the population is too small. Indeed men are (almost always) the vanguard of civilization. Women (almost always) just consume. In America they control 70-80% of all the money spend and they even control 51% of all stocks. Hell even in Islam men are expected (not that it happens) to give all the money they earn to their women. Awesome. You are not like those hypocritical SJW's, Whiteknights (I mean 'allies) or those wheeeeminists.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What I was trying to say is that biology almost always kicks in.

LOL, which is the opposite of "just a social construct".

Sidebar rant: I am really sick and tired of that phrase "just a social construct" -- especially since it usually includes the unstated idea that it is entirely "arbitrary" and therefore endless fungible/modifiable (and worse these days it is pushed onto gender) i.e. "gender is just an arbitrary social construct". No, it is not "just" a social construct, nor is it "arbitrary". Yes there ARE aspects of "gender" and especially "gender roles" that ARE "social constructs" and which are even in many cases, some largely others only somewhat or debatably, "arbitrary"... but that doesn't mean that it is JUST (only, exclusively) those things (and in the case of the "arbitrary", virtually all other options {including uniformity across genders} would be equally arbitrary, and the point is usually trivial if not mundane, and banal).

You can only suppress it so much.

Actually you can suppress it to a massive extent.

To wit, the specific case/scenario we are discussing, the "biological urge" here IS actually being "suppressed" by this friend-zoned male -- he is purposefully delaying/deferring, and in all probability NOT "seeking elsewhere" to satisfy his biological urges -- precisely because he is caught up with this romantic infatuation notion.

IOW, he is not attempting to "spread his seed" in any biological sense.

Yet at the same time, I do NOT think that the kind of "infatuation" is simply, or only, or "just" a so called "social construct".

Does the specific FORM of this friendzoned male's "infatuation" CONTAIN various attributes that are "socially constructed" -- that he is envisioning some "perfect date/getaway" where she will (in classic Rom-Com form) turn to him and... etc. (no need to get into the banality). Well OF COURSE that is "socially constructed".

But is the basic FACT of that kind of infatuation -- call it what you will, some "oneitis", or a "crush" or "puppy love" or whatever -- something that pre-existed the modern "RomCom" thing? Of course it is, there are (and IMO not very well researched or understood, because control/replication is virtually impossible) multiple different biological aspects at play there... moreover, such "infatuation" has been seen in a variety of different animals.

So, the end result is that while well-meaning -- the attempt to break through that bubble of "infatuation" via logic will be fruitless -- there nearly always has to be something that occurs which "breaks" (or breaks through) the biological (subconscious) aspect.

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I feel silly for using the words 'social construct'.

The word/phrase itself isn't bad or evil. And when used appropriately, well there ARE things which are ONLY (just) "social constructs" -- and are moreover even often entirely arbitrary.

Most everything to do with "fashion" for example is of that nature; whether it is length or style of hair; or length of sleeves/pant-legs/skirts, or whether men and/or women wear certain types of clothing, etc. -- those ARE all largely just "social constructs", and they ARE largely (if not entirely) arbitrary.

Gender and gender roles were never really 'social constructs' it is just biology.

It's a MIXTURE. Gender and (certain aspects of) gender roles are not JUST (only/solely) biology any more than they are JUST "social constructs".

There are certain aspects of gender roles that are definitely biological -- men for example have "tits", but they are essentially useless. Were they ALWAYS (evolutionarily speaking) so useless? I somehow doubt that. In fact there I think is a perfect case for what is likely a "vestigial" thing -- mammary glands ARE technically present in both male and female humans; but they only become fully developed to a functional state in females, and are essentially atrophied in males... now why is that? Is it because a "social construct" eventually altered the biology? That would seem distinct possibility.

But conversely, there are other gender roles which are almost entirely "social constructs" -- per example "cooking". It is just as likely that the very concept of "cooking" (most probably grilling & smoking of meat, etc) was initially done by men. And yet somehow -- probably due to simple, logical "division of chores" and the fact that a nursing and/or nurturing mother may as well multi-task and prepare food at the same time (neither function requiring 100% focus, and both being significantly "passive" things) -- the cooking ended up becoming chiefly "women's work". (Note: And I've had to "disabuse" more than one young IDIOT male {yes, even these days} who claimed that they didn't NEED to learn how to cook, because that was "womens work". I noted to them that a FAILURE on their part to know HOW to cook meant they would always be BEHOLDEN to women {or restaurants} -- whereas MASTERING it would "free" them from such chains.)

They won't be able to change that through social means. Unless they enforce genetic changes to a degree that be become hermaphrodites and even then it probably won't make that much of a difference.

They DO seem bent on trying to do that.

The thing is that -- among mammals* -- even actual so called "true" hermaphrodites... well they NEVER have BOTH sets of genitals actually functioning. Either one or the other (or in some cases both) are essentially sterile.

IOW, even among hermaphrodites -- who appear to be both male AND female -- they are actually just one OR the other, and never both.

So there would STILL be "males" and "females".

Of course what they CAN (and do) seem to be doing is to destroy masculinity -- and at least the motives of masculine males to BUILD -- which does not bode well for the future of our society; because the feminine doesn't know HOW to build (or rebuild/repair), it mistakenly assumes that everything already built just "magically" appeared. (And alas, increasingly both genders -- at least in the western nations like the US -- are coming to see the world in that kind of an entitled fashion.)

*Amphibians are apparently a different matter -- but they significantly different than mammals in multiple other ways as well.

Anyway to be fair that kind of "infatuation" existed way before the 'rom-com' time as far as the 16th century.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that such "infatuation" (especially superficial linked to "beauty" and "love at first sight" etc) has existed for as long as humanity has -- the subject was already a common "trope" even back in Ancient Greek literature; for example Narcissus is essentially a story about exactly that kind of pointless single-sided delusion (not only through the character of Narcissus himself, being "infatuated" with his own image in a pool; but also the nymph Echo who fell "in love" with him but was rejected; and another version which adds the Aminias character who commits suicide after Narcissus spurns him... both versions of which posit that the cause of Narcissus self-infatuation was retribution/punishment from the fates/gods {specifically the goddess Nemesis}).

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is hardly a mixture, when you truly think about it.

No, it IS a mixture.

You could argue that computers, skyscrapers (houses) and even power plants are products of nature. They are man made sure enough, but we are ultimately (we humans that is) the product of nature.

I would say that you cannot.

First of all, if you attribute every "conscious choice" to biology... well then everything is "biological" and there is no such thing as "thought", and there is no such thing as "arguement".

BTW, that's one of the other post-modernism inanities. They seem to veer from one ditch straight into the other.

Yeah you totally got my hermaphrodite example. They just won't change anything.

It's a faux-egalitarian inanity. Trying to essentially turn everyone into androgynous drones, neither male nor female.

That creates MAJOR problems... major mental & psychological problems... which we're starting to see already.

What people forget is that those feminists and SJW's consist of a small part of the population. Usually some kind of broken or easily manipulable people.

Oh, don't kid yourself. Small militant groups (yes even of seriously "fucked up" people) have and can wreak havoc on a civilization; they've done so may times in the past.

And SJW's are having that effect on ours right now.

It's like tossing sand into a gearbox... or sugar into a gas tank.

Most of the people just couldn't give a damn, as long as they can live their lives.

Ah but that's precisely the point. That's exactly what they mean to disrupt -- hitting at certain "vulnerable" points.

You are right about the the Greek example. It is quite ironic those examples are in front of our damn eyes and we still don't learn from the mistakes of 2000+ years ago.

I could find other, similar examples in other ancient cultures too.

But I figured just about everyone is at least partially familiar with the Greek myths, and even though they don't necessarily know the full story/stories around Narcissus, virtually everybody knows the basic point.

As to why we don't learn... well, in part as we've both noted there IS a biological/hormonal aspect; one which is extremely strong especially in one's teens & early 20's -- and it takes substantial "preparatory" instruction (including observation of the phenom happening to others, as in older siblings, etc) beforehand, as well as advice during the initial stages -- in order to overcome that...

And our system has essentially eliminated/prevented that kind of thing from happening -- kids are pulled AWAY from daily/continual interaction with family (especially fathers), are isolated with a direct-age peer group, and then given really horrid, formulaic instruction, rather than one-on-one tutoring.

Add in the more recent "taboos" around anything and everything "sexual" -- and it's pretty much a given that most youth will end up experiencing it in an almost "feral" manner.

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And you are totally right men have 0.000000 benefit from sleeping around in our society. That is when you think about it logically. We are with 7billion other people on the world. What difference would it make if you and I just vanished? Virtually nothing as others would (gladly) take over our place.

Yes. There are actually very limited circumstances where a man having multiple children (especially by multiple wives/concubines) will accrue to his benefit: chiefly that would be only of large benefit in a nomadic or semi-nomadic herding/shepherding society. Where a natural increase in the number of potential shepherds (and moreover where even small children can be of major use) is needed to follow along with the natural increase in the herd animals... which then of course provide sufficient food such that the man is NOT overly burdened with an inordinate number of additional mouths to feed (i.e. the kids effectively help raise their own food -- mobile meat-lockers "on the hoof" so to speak).

BUT... even that is fundamentally different from "spreading your seed around" -- i.e. simply impregnating women and then moving on, which regardless of the level of society, really doesn't (ever) create ANY benefit for the man.

About the ONLY exception would be some unique "low population" scenario where there was a DEARTH of fertile males -- i.e. either a disproportionate number of females vs males overall, or some situation where many of the males had been (via disease, etc) rendered sterile. Then there would be an INDIRECT benefit to the man in helping to maintain an overall stable population.

Women (almost always) just consume.

You mistake my point, which was not that they only "consume" -- but rather that they do NOT fundamentally "create civilization" but rather are "along for the ride".

When left to their own devices, or placed in charge of a society, women do NOT create or extend or improve a civilization -- rather they generally cause it's collapse -- they do "work" and they DO "produce" as well as "consume", but other than the role in birth & rearing (which is HARDLY trivial) women do not build/extend. In no small part because they just don't have the time.

I would actually posit something even further -- and that is that MARRIED MEN also do not fundamentally ADVANCE civilization. Oh married men/fathers most certain to BUILD & MAINTAIN, but generally speaking they are focused on providing for their own family (self, wife + children) -- real advances in science, technology, in moving civilization forward, invariably come from young single (or still single, or sometimes "single again") men.

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just meant that sometimes women actually make something.

They do. Generally speaking though -- and this is as much from observation as anything -- what women do "make" tends to be heavily focused on the superficial: it's either jewelry or adornment of one type or another, "fashion" things for either the body or the home, etc.

I mean that quite seriously. And I think the data largely bears it out: per example just look at the various companies that women have founded (recently, or in fact ever): what industries are they in? Media. Cosmetics. Clothing. Jewelry. Fragrances. Food (generally desserts/bakery/confections), etc. -- IOW it's all "consumption" related, and generally fairly superficial (i.e. fad/fashion).

Now... name me ONE company founded by a woman (and not just a "figurehead" or Title IX thing) -- even just one -- where it is focused around a product that enhances the productivity of others...

I honestly cannot think of ANY... not a single one.

Now I'm certain that one exists somewhere (probably several, maybe even dozens, and if you looked around the globe and across history, possibly even a few hundred total).

But the point is that by contrast, I could sit here all day and name companies founded by MEN where essentially the entire focus of the firm was creating things that would NOT just be end-consumption goods, but where the primary (if not sole) emphasis is on enhancing the productivity of others (and often across ALL of society).

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Jennifer Holmgren and Stephanie Fohn

Jenifer Holmgren -- LanzaTech... This one's debatable, there actually IS an end "product", and I suppose you could argue that it can (potentially) facilitate some productivity gains; but in actuality it looks to me more like it's really a "service" business related to emissions regulations (i.e. dependence on other companies, as well as government regs, especially as related to "Climate Change" etc), and moreover it's basically still in "startup" mode. (EDIT: also, per this article, well I'll just quote it "Sean Simpson, a co-founder of LanzaTech and inventor of its technology." which really understates it, since he actually is THE {single} founder, starting the operation in 2005, and hired her about 4 years later, 2010... so calling her "co-founder" is more than a bit of a stretch.*)
Stephanie Fohn -- WhiteHat Security... I'd call that a "service business" and not a true "production" operation.

Again, it's certainly not that women can never do this; it's just that in general, even when heavily subsidized via EO funding, etc -- they just really don't not in any major way.

Men are generally the ones, as in most of the time, who create things and manage things.

Yes, this is the point. 99.99...% of all the "tech" that has (over centuries and millennia) has come from the minds of MALES -- and that is what has built "civilization".

And to my point about "single men", well... to wit, this photo (currently on the front page), and while it's from an r/funny thread nevertheless it makes the same point as well (i.e. the reason it's "funny" is because it's often rather true).

*EDIT: To wit, he also seems to be "playing" the female-CEO angle, here's another quote:

Why she answered a headhunter's call: Simpson said the decision to recruit Holmgren in 2010 was partly aimed at improving LanzaTech's credibility as an ethanol producer and to distinguish it from being just another "green tech" startup trying to help the environment. "We had to be taken seriously," he said. And he wanted a CEO who could "really attract people's attention from a monetary perspective."

Note that it isn't that she's not technically competent -- but I have little doubt that the "female CEO" is mainly about, as he noted "really attract people's attention".

Now ask yourself WHY. Why would having a female CEO of a "techy" company be REALLY attention-worthy?

Because it's really... really, really, really RARE.

Nuff said I think.

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well it is true for obvious reasons. Those guys have pretty taxing curriculum. They have study for like 3-5 years for either the bachelor degree or the master degree (assuming that they just kept on studying straight) and then they will be 'socially' behind most of the time. As they have less time to interact with people and stunt they 'social growth'.

It's also inherent in the field -- has been for a long time actually -- whether "engineering" or prior to that even just the skilled crafts/trades. They ALL generally required diligence and discipline and near 100% focus to master during your youth, and "socializing" was simply not in the game plan; that was/is either for those who were wealthy (upper class) & had the leisure to fritter around with inanities, OR for those who were locked into the land itself, and where acquiring a wife/kids was as much about having a work-crew (and from the female side, a source of food & a home) as it was about "socializing".

I do give the blame to the 'American dream'.

Which one, or should I say which iteration.

Because the "American Dream" has changed rather dramatically over the past 2 centuries.

Originally it was all about having a mule a plow, and a few acres -- all for yourself & to be able to keep your own gains from your own labor -- and to emphatically NOT have ANY of your crop siphoned off as taxation/rents (i.e. to escape the old feudal/serf system where 1/3 or 1/2 of your harvest was "shared" with the gummint).

The notion that if you work really hard that you will get rich, get a beautiful wife and children with it. People just take it to the extreme.

Ah, but that's only the later iterations... basically 20th century, and then really mostly mid-20th century -- and really it's the government propagandized version, the one packaged up and sold via the public education system (the one based on the Prussian model, and heavily invested with socialist & nationalist garbage).

But for the first 100+ years, it simply wasn't about getting to be some uber-billionaire -- it was about freedom, and the chance to KEEP the fruits of your own labor.

In a lot of ways, I suppose you could even say that the original version of "the American Dream" was actually MGTOW... but with a (respectful) wife and kids.

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

BY THE WAY... apologies for the length... we're digressing all over the place here. (Though it's been an enjoyable exchange!)

HA funny that you bring that up! It is true those women aren't stupid most of the time, far from it actually, but they contribute so damn little.

See if you recognize anything of the following:

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may [...be...] (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to.

No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him.

That's a brief snippet from one of J.R.R. Tolkien's letters to his son Michael, written in 1941. Now keep in mind that by that point in time Tolkien had been a professor at one university or another (first Leeds, then Oxford), lecturing in English Language; and during those two decades he had actually had quite a number of female students (amidst many more male students granted), and given that (after 1925) we ARE talking about Oxford they weren't exactly remedial students, but rather the "cream of the crop" so to speak.

Yet while he notes that they DID excel, even goes so far to note that they DID grasp the ideas, even states "remarkable insight and understanding" (and from Tolkien, "Edwardian" that he was, that is phenomenally high praise) and moreover expresses that they achieve it quickly.

But then the lament... they go no further, even that most of them CAN go no further? They do not delve on their own, they are teachable but not self-motivated, not shall we say "autodidact" types -- the passion for the subject itself (in and OF itself) is almost never present.

In other words, he is effectively saying... pretty much what you have, that it is external pressures/motives/incentives, to wit in your words:

Most the women in the tech industry are here just for the money or the easy scholarship. Not because they want to accomplish something. If you ask them if they actually like doing it it always comes down to either it is because the pay is good (relatively seen) or because their father/mother was an engineer. So it comes down to money or daddy/mommy issues/pressure.

Now keep in mind Tolkien was teaching ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Yet even there, in that (relatively) non-techy, non-mechanistic field -- and if anyone was "anti-machine" it would be Tolkien (there is massive evidence of his stance on that, both in his fiction and in his correspondence & notes) -- even there they did not "excel" (and the doors were most emphatically NOT closed to them in that field, there was no "glass ceiling", no inherent gender bias, there having been many notably prominent & successful British women authors in the prior decades and century -- and specifically during his time at Leeds, over half the English department {grad students} were women).

And indeed, what you noted also rhymes with my own general experience, both in school and later in industry. Even among the best/brightest (and we are talking not just "high grades" but actual comprehension and understanding of science AND math) even still, it was nearly always more in the nature of "covering well-trodden ground", and never towards anything "creative" in terms of utility or real-world problem solving. I recall especially in my high school we had 2 girls who were VERY sharp (ended up as 2 of 3 co-valedictorians, the 3rd being a teachers-daughter and not of the same caliber, but I digress) anyway even though these two were sharp in sciences (chemistry & physics as well as biology) AND in the higher math classes... they were entirely non-motivated when it came to the programming classes; oh they did the assignments adequately, learned exactly and specifically (and really ONLY) what the teacher taught for language & technique, and thus got "A" grades, but they did nothing beyond.

By comparison, several of the guys, including some otherwise "B" or even mediocre "C" students, really "dug in" and before we were even halfway through the semester had all not only mastered what was being taught, but gone far beyond, learning many additional techniques, tricks, even additional languages (things the instructor didn't know, didn't even know the time-share system had access to, much less did he know the languages, syntax, etc) -- and we did all of that ON our own... pursued it with a passion. Several creating entirely independent little "creative" projects, simply because we now had the TOOLS at hand and so... well, why not try it?

The girls not only didn't do any of that, they stated quite clearly and openly that they didn't see ANY point in it. Why learn more than the curriculum required? I mean if you've already satisfied the teacher, what is to be gained?

Well... seriously? What is to be gained from learning new languages, new techniques; from leaning what's actually going on inside -- how that upper level "BASIC" language is interpreted into machine codes... and then learning Assembly, and how compilers/interpreters are constructed to do that automatically (programs creating programs)... I mean talk about missing the boat. (BTW most of those guys, as well as several from subsequent years, well we all either went into programming as a job/business at some point, or used those skills {and of course more} to significant "utility" as well as financial ends later on.)

But really -- as Tolkien points out -- that's how females/women operate. The interest is (most often and only rarely not) external/superficial -- pleasing parents, teachers, maybe showing interest in some boyfriend's topic; receptive... but not TRULY focused or driven or passionate.

And I can generally say that I've seen the same out IN business later on as well... there are several highly intelligent women, women whom it has been a sheer JOY to work with and alongside; yet even there, the intelligence, sharp as it has been, has also been -- what would be the words to describe it? limited reach? blunted? short of the mark? maybe even 'narrow focus'? -- excellent to the specific task at hand, as designated by someone else, but generally unwilling, unable, and I would venture to say incapable of "seeing" beyond that... of crafting something GREATER/BETTER than was originally intended or envisioned. I suppose another way to say it would be that in my experience, women often function well as "apprentices", and some are even capable of being good "journeyman" level, but they almost never seem capable of actually reaching full "mastery" stage -- they just don't see the point in it.

As Simon Baron-Cohen has noted there definitely IS a "male brain" -- and it has somewhat autistic/asperger type focus; indeed he goes further to note that autism/aspergers is an "extreme" form of "male brain" -- TOO focused, TOO systematizing, TOO analytical and objective.

EDIT: And to bring this back into context -- specifically the context of this thread -- what is the "achievement" the "accomplishment" the young woman (whose text message is linked to by OP) is so "proud" of and "happy" about having succeeded at: oh, that's right, she's successfully "tricked" a guy OUT of another relationship and kept him orbiting her for her "#backupplan". Wow, quite impressive wouldn't you say?

I mean really... there's no difference between "genders" is there? The whole "gender" thing is just totally like be like some like paper-arkal "social cons-trick" or something, right? (That is what it's called, right? a "social cons trick" -- and the paper-arky thing with those creepy old men and stuff -- I mean, well you know whateva.)

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

O I really don't mind it! It is something refreshing, when you compare it to crappy subreddits like 2x and askwomen. I mean even insinuating that men and women are different makes you a totally privileged cis-white- (insert random derogatory term)- man. To the degree that even positive sexism is terrible, but you don't hear them crying about that. They just don't want the responsibility that accompanies it. Men may have more chances in a degree, but we take most of the risks and responsibility. Women can work and then just marry if they wanted to. A man generally doesn't have that option. He is expected to work. Anyway back to the subject. This is the reason why you have more men who are from the 'genius' caliber and men who are more of the 'retard' caliber. Women are generally just 'average' on that scale. That makes totally sense as they are pretty much hardwired to take as less risks as possible. Funny that you bring that up. The 'male' brain does exist if not only for the different hormones that men have when compared to women. You generally have less women who 'suffer' from Aspergers or Autism. The women are generally more borderline, but that aside. Yeah totally if tricking someone to 'orbit' around you is an accomplishment, then well.... I don't really know. Besides that it is quite pathetic. Men generally would say well I just did it. No accomplishment or anything.

Edit: that is why a lot of women are 'succeeding' at the current education system. It is tailor made for them. If they would actually challenge boys more, then you would have more boys 'rising to the challenge'.

[–]0xeb11 points 11 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]codyopj 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

While I think it's a bit difficult to feel totally bad for them, women have to take most of the blame for this behavior. Most men in our society have been raised and ingrained with the idea that in order to get fulfillment in life, they must fall in love with a woman, and proceed to win her over, no matter how perilous it may be to his well-being. An antiquated notion that does not work out well for the modern man in western society.

It's like the Sirens that would sing and bring ships to their doom. Some men after crashing once, figure out the reality of the situation, and proceed to block them out. Some can't even fathom the idea that they have been told a false version of reality their whole lives, so they continue doing what they've been programmed to do.

I believe a large part of it is their exposure to women during adolescence. I found out what terrible things women were capable of at an early age, thanks to my stepmother. She is modern feminism embodied, and my dad is the blue piller we all make fun of. A large part of my experience was because I was under the custody of my father, rather than my mother. These men raised by single mothers were molded into these good little white knights.

With that kind of programming, I can imagine why it's a good bit harder to see women for what they are truly capable of, without immediately throwing the thought out as misogynistic. I truly believe that rather than simply denouncing these other men as weak, we need to try to lead them to the truth. That is what will bring about the change we want, and at a much faster pace than waiting for every man to figure it out on his own.

[–]spaceballs-1 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]0xeb1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Everyone is being thought that women are the pinnacle achievement. To the degree that you must be either gay, asexual or a total loser if you don't want to be in a relationship or want anything to do with women. That is the problem here. It is perceived as if that is their self worth. Those men are so dependent on women that they are basically living for those women. That is where it goes wrong. Those men will feel that they are entitled to women just purely out of frustration, when they can't get one. Irony dictates that if they would just not 'give a damn' that they would be happier and even attract more women as they don't come off as desperate and clingy, because they are more confident. That is why the advice of those single moms is just projection. They are teaching their sons to be what they need at that time. Not what those boys need to be.

[–]0xeb1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Morranaii1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]denart47 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Semiorganic 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spaceballs-1 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cagethepepper 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stevekixs 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOW_philosopher 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]denart42 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SexySohail2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MonkeyCB1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordPorker 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]General_Fear1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]penguingun0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]cancerbotX0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mgtow_rules1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arxces5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morranaii0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDemontheses0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_NerdStark0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pbnfluff0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vuudoodude1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Sickening
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	88
Comments	56
Date	April 12, 2015 3:25 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/32c7d4/sickening/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/sickening.628471 https://theredarchive.com/post/628471

Comments

BY THE WAY... apologies for the length... we're digressing all over the place here. (Though it's been an enjoyable exchange!)