Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

A theory on women.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 07:01:31 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.

We should stop looking at women as exalted, or otherwise special beings, and just accept that they are not going to make most of us "happy". Sure, the sex is great, and we can have some good conversations with them. However, such things are typically just a means to an end.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 07:05:09 PM
It's the most ridiculous thing to say that women are emptier than man, or inferior.

Take that russian that was photographed naked in extremely freezing water with whales. It was courageous, he was beautiful, it was not pornographic, she is a champion of holding her breath, I mean, what's to consider inferior?

Women fought wars too.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 07:08:59 PM
I find it fascinating that some cats here immediately called me out as a limp dicked pussified bastard.
I am simply tired. I think i've found a woman who is intelligent but sooner or later her vanity comes out. No matter how many books she has read or what topic she's knowledgeale about at the core she's just a blank staring, eyelash batting bitch who knows that her beauty will get her 90 percent of things in life. Modern culture also makes it so easy for women who want to distinguish themselves to pounce on some nerd culture without putting in the work that the nerds do in a self-representational kind of way. Idiocy.
Women need to be ugly at some point in their lives (preferably teenage years) and truly suffer through the pain of that to develop any kind of value.  

E

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 09:22:56 PM
she is a champion of holding her breath

Yep, that's EXACTLY how I like my women.


Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 09:38:41 PM
Women need to be ugly at some point in their lives (preferably teenage years) and truly suffer through the pain of that to develop any kind of value.  

Untrue. Nobody needs to suffer lack of anything to learn to value antythyng, neither it's needed to suffer the lack of certain virtues in others or oneself, to learn to value that virtues, and so on...

What you're saying is the typical prejudice against beauty, and actually nature works the other way around. I've never had that prejudice, just by instinct, I recognize, and I know several women pretty beautiful in body and mind, my wife included.

Change your perspsctive.

Re: A theory on women.
September 25, 2011, 10:31:27 PM
Baldr is the most beautiful, most virtuous, and thence best loved of the Gods, and he need never suffer, but for the jealousy of others.

Re: A theory on women.
September 27, 2011, 11:19:19 PM
We should stop looking at women as exalted, or otherwise special beings, and just accept that they are not going to make most of us "happy". Sure, the sex is great, and we can have some good conversations with them. However, such things are typically just a means to an end.
I agree. The sexes need to be realistic about each other and the purpose of this vague thing called "love" in order to get anywhere.

I am simply tired. I think I've found a woman who is intelligent but sooner or later her vanity comes out.
I can sympathize - I've met similar disappointment. But what are you expecting? Women were bred to be vain. Are you nearly as attracted to a homely girl as a hot one? That's why women are vain. Because men are concerned about their appearances. You can't blame modern women for their nature - You can blame your forefathers.

I once said the same thing to a feminist blathering about patriarchy: women prefer more aggressive and socially commanding men and breed with them. Don't blame modern men - blame your foremothers.

No matter how many books she has read or what topic she's knowledgeable about at the core she's just a blank staring, eyelash batting bitch who knows that her beauty will get her 90 percent of things in life.
I don't understand - how does having this particular flaw undo any other value she might have? Could I claim that your attitude negates any value you might bring to this conversation? I can accept that a person might have some undesirable quality in their nature as long as they recognize it and can overcome it, even if not entirely.

Imagine this misandrist take on your statement:

Quote from: feminist
No matter how many books he has read or what topic he's knowledgeable about at the core he's just a violent animal, woman-battering bastard who knows that being an asshole will get him 90 percent of things in life. And they're all rapists too!!!
I think you can appreciate the necessity of healthy gender relations to keep a society alive. Thus my interest in repairing them. And I just hate to see intelligent people who are motivated and capable (like the manosphere) go extinct over things so petty.

Women need to be ugly at some point in their lives (preferably teenage years) and truly suffer through the pain of that to develop any kind of value.
Greater modesty would be appreciated. Should be adopt the burka?

I just want to know what your solutions are (any of you guys).

Re: A theory on women.
September 28, 2011, 02:58:22 AM
When the western world's economy completely tanks, I think (hope) people will cease being automatons, realize they have to stick together to stay afloat,, and re-sacralize traditional relationships and virtues.

Re: A theory on women.
September 28, 2011, 12:28:16 PM
Marriage isn't for some people. For someone who is socially withdrawn the level of compromise involved can seem incredibly invasive. I would say that the most important thing is not to carry too many expectations and pre-conceived notions into any relationship. Yes, 'dry-runs' in your younger years teach valuable lessons but every relationship will be different (unless you keep picking the same type of partner).

I have been in a relationship for two and a half years now and I have found it tremendously challenging and rewarding. I was getting a little bored with myself in all honesty. Then I found a woman with a warlike nature tempered with beauty and tenderness. Sometimes I don't like what she has to say - and then I realise that she's right. She isn't perfect - neither of us are. However, both of us have grown in ways that I doubt would have been possible without each other. We don't 'need' each other, but we compliment each other beautifully (so far anyway).

Maybe you still need to work on yourself a bit more before looking for a relationship - the short chapter on marriage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra offers some excellent insights.


Re: A theory on women.
September 29, 2011, 04:29:04 AM
When the western world's economy completely tanks, I think (hope) people will cease being automatons

I think that sheep will still be sheep when the fences are taken down.

Re: A theory on women.
September 29, 2011, 07:08:01 AM
Sheep without fences fall quicker prey to wolves.

They will either adapt, or die.

Re: A theory on women.
October 05, 2011, 02:39:11 AM
Those of reasonable intelligence but still under the spell of modernity will be set free once they can't afford anything but life's most basic necessities.

Hipsters will grow up or wither away when their bourgeois lifestyle becomes impossible.

Re: A theory on women.
October 05, 2011, 02:49:45 AM
Those of reasonable intelligence but still under the spell of modernity will be set free once they can't afford anything but life's most basic necessities.

I believe that the masses will take the intelligent people down with them. That is why secessionism is important. Don't count on a cesspool and it's underlying region to be any use when society's thin veil of sanity (ha!) has eroded.

 

Re: A theory on women.
October 05, 2011, 01:51:26 PM
this thread needs a horde of Cannibal Corpse fans ..
 

Re: A theory on women.
October 05, 2011, 03:08:36 PM
I find it fascinating that some cats here immediately called me out as a limp dicked pussified bastard.
I am simply tired. I think i've found a woman who is intelligent but sooner or later her vanity comes out. No matter how many books she has read or what topic she's knowledgeale about at the core she's just a blank staring, eyelash batting bitch who knows that her beauty will get her 90 percent of things in life. Modern culture also makes it so easy for women who want to distinguish themselves to pounce on some nerd culture without putting in the work that the nerds do in a self-representational kind of way. Idiocy.
Women need to be ugly at some point in their lives (preferably teenage years) and truly suffer through the pain of that to develop any kind of value.  

This is oh so true, the majority of women tend to be social thinkers who cling on to any social group they can. Only the ones that are forced to think for themselves can form actual opinions. The same goes for a large majority of modern men as well.

Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated--a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.