Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

A theory on women.

A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 02:49:32 AM
they are vacuous.
Nature hates vacuums more than anything. Women contain one.

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 04:01:21 AM
Broken heart? Sucks bro. But try writing a poem instead of defaming womanhood.

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 04:08:10 AM
It's a bird. it's a plane. It's captain save-a-hoe

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 11:05:44 AM
This place is getting retarded.

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 03:04:29 PM
Man up, get over it, and move on.

No sense whining here about it. If you want to complain about women where people actually pretend to care, take it to facebook or myspace.

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 09:03:30 PM
I know plenty of women who aren't vacuous, so your theory falters under scrutiny...

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
I know plenty of women who aren't vacuous, so your theory falters under scrutiny...
are they goodlooking?are they remote from a culture that turns them into airheadedly cheerful romance fanatics?

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 11:00:11 PM
I know plenty of women who aren't vacuous, so your theory falters under scrutiny...
are they goodlooking?are they remote from a culture that turns them into airheadedly cheerful romance fanatics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8e2ujXe8g

Dude, come on. Yes, the culture we live in leads people to be extremely self centered, hollow, etc. Women especially suffer from this because of garbage like Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, and so on. DO NOT assume all women are like that. Assert yourself, maintain your confidence, and the right woman will be yours.

Re: A theory on women.
September 24, 2011, 11:35:54 PM
Yeah, they're good looking, but they're probably too into me for your tastes, diesel.  Unless you like that kind of thing.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 12:32:18 AM
Probably.  We've all got better things to be getting on with.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 12:36:41 AM
NAWALT! - Not All Women Are Like That!

I love that argument. It makes perfect sense.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/12/nawalt-is-true-so-whats-the-problem/
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/08/15/not-all-women-are-like-that-explained/

If you are looking for women to fill a void, that isn't happening.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 01:05:07 AM
NAWALT! - Not All Women Are Like That!

Enough women are like that to keep me from spending much time worrying about the matter. Not that I'd repel it, but I've got better things to focus on in the meantime.

Improve oneself and not only will attracting women become easier, but you'll have better clarity when it comes to distinguishing the good from the bad.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 03:14:43 AM
simmer down bro. you sound like the dude in on of those 100 person gangbangs who eats the chick out after all the guys are done busting in her.
On a serious note, what is responsible for this mass failure among women?? I odn't know what the fuck happened.
This is a forum of realists who would not deny (socio)biology being responsible for inferiority, if that was the case.
is it the fact that most television they are encouraged to consume has to do with drama and lies while most male television (while YES watching sports is stupid) atleast incorporates strategy?
If it's not the vacuum theory, offer something else.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 05:21:04 PM
On a serious note, what is responsible for this mass failure among women?? I odn't know what the fuck happened.
This is a forum of realists who would not deny (socio)biology being responsible for inferiority, if that was the case.
is it the fact that most television they are encouraged to consume has to do with drama and lies while most male television (while YES watching sports is stupid) atleast incorporates strategy?
If it's not the vacuum theory, offer something else.
(Sorry is this sounds 101-ish, and I won't profess to be an expert, but I'd like this to be more than a No Gurlz Klub)

One of the things we can learn from nihilism is that valuation requires context. If your context for evaluation is defined by standards for men, then yes, women are terrible failures at being men compared to men. I think evolution has ensured that women are biologically successful in the context in which they evolved. You wouldn't think lowly of women if they were filling roles they are naturally more apt to, because they wouldn't be failures in those contexts.

Getting to what the fuck happened (historical biology): Females and males had very different requirements for survival and reproduction, thus they developed different concerns and skills. As you observed, men are concerned about and more capable of strategizing physical conflict and the technologies involved and women are more concerned about navigating social conflict and relationships. Even a cursory exploration of the implications of evolution will relieve any surprise of the sexes' inclinations.

Getting to what the fuck happened (modern sociology): The problem might not even be that we abandoned a particular paradigm (patriarchy) but that we moved from a paradigm with proven effectiveness to no paradigm at all. With no established roles, or poorly fitting roles, we get constant disappointment and frustration, which is expressed in threads like these from both men and women. This occurred to me recently: it isn't the individuals involved in a relationship that are inane (because evaluation requires context) it's the concept of a relationship itself that has become inane.

Further: I've seen it hypothesized that the males in most sexual species are almost like a laboratory in which future characteristics of the species are experimented with. Thus, traits like intelligence vary more with males, I think this has been observed, so there will be more men of above-average intelligence than women. If you find that you're a man of above-average intelligence, then women of your capacity will become fewer the more intelligent you are. Sorry. Women aren't vacuous because they're below-average. They seem that way because they're simply average and you're not.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 05:45:33 PM
NAWALT! - Not All Women Are Like That!
Spearhead
InMalaFide
As a misanthrope, am I not implicitly a misogynist?

Skimming those articles inspired a line of thought. Let's say I wanted to marry a white woman. That's my only requirement. White. The world over, only about 13% of people are identified as "white". That means 87% are not what I'm looking for. Not very good odds. Especially if I'm in Burma, where whites represent less than 1% of the population. They don't even rank, meaning it's probably less than 0.1% and only half would be female... perhaps Burma isn't the best place to look?

Or what if I wanted to meet a Swiss woman? The Swiss make up only ~0.1% of the world's population. Is it hopeless? Where do I find one?!?

I don't know... I really just tired of the bitter, fatalist attitude. Do we all just stay home with our Real Dolls (or borrow an organic equivalent)? Go extinct?

If you are looking for women to fill a void, that isn't happening.
No, but they can look to me to fill their void(s)!!!
HHHEEEEYYYY-OOOOHHHH!!!
...or...
She could with this rubber str---OK, I'll stop.