100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: diesel on September 23, 2011, 07:49:32 PM

Title: A theory on women.
Post by: diesel on September 23, 2011, 07:49:32 PM
they are vacuous.
Nature hates vacuums more than anything. Women contain one.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Mindtraveller on September 23, 2011, 09:01:21 PM
Broken heart? Sucks bro. But try writing a poem instead of defaming womanhood.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: diesel on September 23, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
It's a bird. it's a plane. It's captain save-a-hoe
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: nothingnowhere on September 24, 2011, 04:05:44 AM
This place is getting retarded.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Humanicide on September 24, 2011, 08:04:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Cargést on September 24, 2011, 02:03:30 PM
I know plenty of women who aren't vacuous, so your theory falters under scrutiny...
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: diesel on September 24, 2011, 02:26:30 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?
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Humanicide on September 24, 2011, 04:00:11 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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Cargést on September 24, 2011, 04:35:54 PM
Yeah, they're good looking, but they're probably too into me for your tastes, diesel.  Unless you like that kind of thing.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Cargést on September 24, 2011, 05:32:18 PM
Probably.  We've all got better things to be getting on with.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Spectrum on September 24, 2011, 05:36:41 PM
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.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/ (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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Petrarca on September 24, 2011, 06:05:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: diesel on September 24, 2011, 08:14:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: AnHero on September 25, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: AnHero on September 25, 2011, 10:45:33 AM
NAWALT! - Not All Women Are Like That!
Spearhead (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/12/nawalt-is-true-so-whats-the-problem/)
InMalaFide (http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/08/15/not-all-women-are-like-that-explained/)
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Spectrum on September 25, 2011, 12:01:31 PM
NAWALT! - Not All Women Are Like That!
Spearhead (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/12/nawalt-is-true-so-whats-the-problem/)
InMalaFide (http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/08/15/not-all-women-are-like-that-explained/)
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: indjaseemun on September 25, 2011, 12:05:09 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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: diesel on September 25, 2011, 12:08:59 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.  
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: E on September 25, 2011, 02:22:56 PM
she is a champion of holding her breath

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

Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: LD50 on September 25, 2011, 02:38:41 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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Cargést on September 25, 2011, 03:31:27 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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: AnHero on September 27, 2011, 04:19:19 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).
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Mindtraveller on September 27, 2011, 07:58:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Olestra on September 28, 2011, 05:28:16 AM
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.

Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Bondage on September 28, 2011, 09:29:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Queequeg on September 29, 2011, 12:08:01 AM
Sheep without fences fall quicker prey to wolves.

They will either adapt, or die.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Mindtraveller on October 04, 2011, 07:39:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Spectrum on October 04, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Agni on October 05, 2011, 06:51:26 AM
this thread needs a horde of Cannibal Corpse fans ..
 
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Examiner on October 05, 2011, 08:08:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Von List on October 05, 2011, 08:42:50 AM
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Shrews-Katrina-Fernandez-09-30-2011.html
Title: Re: A theory on women.
Post by: Olestra on October 07, 2011, 05:16:53 AM
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Shrews-Katrina-Fernandez-09-30-2011.html

Here's an alternative theory - collectively and individually we (men) need to grow some balls.

In all honesty I haven't met many of these supposed men hating feminists who have proliferated modern society. Perhaps though the lack of purpose and direction of most men has created a vacuum that has been filled by women with more masculine traits?

It's also a mistake to assume that every 'shrew' is a man hating feminist who wants to subvert the traditional male/female societal roles. Take Maggie Thatcher as an example (regardless of hw you feel about her policies, you can't question that this woman had balls) - she is often criticized for having done nothing for feminism (beyond leading by example).

In my experience women don't harass their partner because they want to dominate the relationship - they do so because they want their partner to be MORE of a man, to take greater control and to assume the role of provider. I see this female reaction to feminism all the time - it just doesn't seem like a reaction to feminism because it's aimed not at the feminists but at the men who have passively accepted a subsidiary role.