Guys,
I was reading some comments to a Dr. Helen post, and there was this GEM of a comment by Rob Fedders. In it, he gives us the lowdown on male/female interactions and relationships. He takes the contents of entire books, and distills their essential message to a few paragraphs. Thank you, Mr. Fedders! This is good stuff...
------------------
Very few women are capable of empathizing
with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to
empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with
adults.I was reading some comments to a Dr. Helen post, and there was this GEM of a comment by Rob Fedders. In it, he gives us the lowdown on male/female interactions and relationships. He takes the contents of entire books, and distills their essential message to a few paragraphs. Thank you, Mr. Fedders! This is good stuff...
------------------
This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women.
Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours.
"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale
Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man."
What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do.
That is why women ALWAYS marry up-always! Since we're a 'business' for women, marrying down wouldn't make sense as an economic or business model.
Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around.
I remember Christopher from Oregon making the same point. He said that Nature would make women look beautiful, so that we'd breed with them; it's all about Nature getting us to breed-end of story. It's Nature's way of getting us to do something against our best interest-committing to a woman long term.
It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children.
Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women.
We are both designed this way by nature. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations.
We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time.
You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him.
That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be. Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.
Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.
Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's want's are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit.
This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases, the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.
It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same.
It's not going to change.
These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)
-----------------
Good stuff, wouldn't you agree? If we wait for women to empathize with us Fellas, we'll be waiting a LONG, long time! Here's a better idea: GYOW, and live life the way YOU want to, not as some woman's tool. Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
Good stuff, wouldn't you agree? If we wait for women to empathize with us Fellas, we'll be waiting a LONG, long time! Here's a better idea: GYOW, and live life the way YOU want to, not as some woman's tool. Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
3/20/09
1233
12 comments:
Liked this:
"Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's want's are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit."
Didn't like this:
"Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases, the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general."
I think there is a world of difference between a woman who wants a husband and a family and is willing to give something in return (i.e., children, sex), and those women who just want a series of slave(s) to help them actualize their needs and wants.
I've been lurking on this blog for a while, and while I don't always agree with the consensus, I find myself having to admit that there is good reason to hold these views. The amount of women that I see adhering to the generalizations described here is staggering at times, though I am unsure if this is due to my proximity to an urban area or simply the result of recent generations of entitlement. Regardless of what it comes down to, I'm not...fond...of it.
At any rate, the above quotation ends with the prediction that anti-feminism will culminate in a battle between women who are "pro-government" versus "pro-traditionalism". But what of those of us who are neither? In other words, women who are happily single and desire nothing more than to remain marriage and child free? Is there no chance of us making a difference and changing enough legislation (along with our MGTOW brothers) so as to bring about laws that are no longer sexist?
I would greatly appreciate any and all thoughts on this, as I believe it may be one way to rid our government of non-egalitarian decisions.
Sophia,
I think women have adopted the attitudes due to both proximity to urban areas, and recent generations raised with entitlement mentality.
MarkyMark
"Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours."
How backwards this is from 1 Corinthians 11:9.
Goes to show modern women are not living in the state God intended. Men can only feel a deep sense of betrayal from this, whether they consciously know it or not. When dealt such stiff betrayal the only thing to do is not to trust and find your own way.
"But what of those of us who are neither? In other words, women who are happily single and desire nothing more than to remain marriage and child free?"
You aren't "neither". You are in the camp of women catered to by government and crony capitalism. The same system that caters to other "happily single and marriage free" lesbian separatist ideologues soaking up taxpayer money in gender studies departments caters to you also,even if you aren't one of them.Unless you are for strengthening the family versus the government, you are PRO-GOVERNMENT interference in the family.
You do not seem to understand. There is no "neutral position" in this fight. Your fellow females have increased the size and scope of government so that it is involved in EVERYTHING.Until we get the government OUT of decisions that should be made by THE PEOPLE, you are helping the statists by refusing to oppose them.
If you are neither pro-tradition nor pro-government,it makes no difference,since our society is in a tailspin. If you want to go neither left nor right nor up nor down in an airplane, but remain traveling in a straight course, FIRST you have to pull your airplane out of its snaproll by choosing ONE or the OTHER direction to steer your plane in. If you like choices, you'll choose the pro-tradition side, since the government doesn't believe in individual freedoms or the right of the people to choose,it believes in increasing its own POWER.
This article is probably the best reason I know of for men to say "the HELL with women" and GTOW.
@ Anonymous
I agree to a certain extent with what you state, in particular the encroachment of government into the private lives of its citizens. I also suppose that given those two choices, I would have to say I'm far more supportive of stable family structures, loving spouses and households with more than one parent. As such, I do attempt to make voting decisions that reflect this, and so do understand that one must stand for what one believes in, even when it is not the popular or agreed upon choice.
However, I still would not wish to ever partake of this choice for myself. Having a clean apartment, control of my finances, ability to put in overtime at work, and time for my own hobbies and endeavors is bliss. Whether it's saving money for 9 months to attend a convention, having a quiet meal with a good book, or staying out til 2am playing D&D with my gaming group...I can't imagine giving this up to become a wife and mother.
So yes- I support strong family values despite not wanting them for myself. I simply think that MGTOW and WGTOW have more power than any of us realize, and thus believe that our voices might become loud enough to be heard without being drowned out. No?
Indeed. But which proves to be more prevalent, in your personal experience?
I'm embarrassed for you, bro. If you don't realize that all humans view other humans as tools for their own ends, then perhaps you have been living alone in a cave too long.
There is a tremendous difference between acknowledging that humans (like most primates) are a social species that function best in small communities...and acting as a sociopath that attempt to use others as means to an end, rather than respecting them as fellow beings with individual desires and goals.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but the very notion of "using" people for my own needs/wants is abhorrent to the extreme. Not only would this lead to a loss of empathy and compassion towards others dreams or plights, but it infantilizes the "user" as incapable of taking action on their own behalf. This is quite a loathsome way to view the world, even if it is proven true at times. Such Machiavellian viewpoints are, in my experience, far more detrimental than beneficial to a society.
Laura(UnmaskingFeminism),
The same Scripture came to mind when I read those words. And it's one I tell myself all the time.
"Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
Woman was created as a helper, to help a man achieve his ends, not hers. To see a man as a "business" or way for women to get what they want is wrong. To me it speaks volumes of truth that humanity is sinful and inclined to rebel directly against the order God created.
I agree with almost everything. Everything here is correct, except that at the very, very top of the pyramid, it's the richest men manipulating society to be about women.
You think the richest trillionaires and billionaires worry about what women think? Nah. They just want the rest of us to be emasculated so the entire populace is easier to control. But that's another subject.
Post a Comment