Dear ladies,
Let’s talk feelings. Actually, forget that. I’ll talk feelings, because if you talk feelings, I won’t get to talk at all.
I know, that sounded insensitive. Well, it was insensitive, and quite intentionally so. But keep reading, there is a method to my malice, and a message that you really need to hear. I don’t want you to miss out on it because you’re in a huff over the fact that I regard your feelings at best, as obstructive, and at worst, the primary and overarching cause of failure in your love life. And worse yet, as a source of abusive control for anyone crazy enough to get close to you.
As ironic as it may sound to you, if you want a good love life, the first step is to get your feelings out of the way, or at least quit using them as a weapon. So let’s get out of Oprah mode and just use our brains long enough to sort this thing out.
It starts, like most of your problems, in childhood. That’s the cute and annoyingly whiney phase of life that boys, unlike you, are forced to outgrow. You don’t get all the blame for that, but if you really want a meaningful relationship, you’d better start taking some responsibility for correcting it.
Babies, whether blue or pink, are pretty much alike. When a child gets hungry or dirty or tired or sick or lonely or scared, they tend to react by screeching until someone does something about it. It makes sense. Babies, after all, can’t take care of themselves.
But not too far along in life the paths of boys and girls, emotionally speaking, fork into two very different directions. By the time both have some measure of language and cognitive skills the reaction to all that caterwauling changes, and not so subtly.
Pretty early in a boys life, about the time he can speak in complete sentences, tolerance for remaining a baby wears thin. His wailing is met with everything from ridicule to threats. If “big boys don’t cry,” doesn’t work, then, “I’ll give you something to cry about,” usually does, especially after a few rounds of following through.
Psychologists will tell you that this is where we harm boys, that we dissociate them from their feelings and shut down their emotional selves. They even call it emotional abuse.
But in most cases, unless taken too far, it doesn’t abuse boys feelings as much as it teaches them to start mastering them. That kind of self control is a pretty good skill that comes in handy for a lot of things, like, say, being an adult. You see, before the psychologists came along to tell us what rotten parents we were, we had a different name for the effect we had on boys, although not so catchy and marketable.
We called it growing up. It was all the rage.
We knew, even without a Ph.D. in conjecture, that not maturing was a bad thing. It resulted in all sorts of problems, like permanent childhood and self centeredness.
And women.
That’s because while we were insisting that boys learn real life skills, girls got a different message. Actually, they got the same message that they’d been getting since birth. Namely that squawking loud enough will get you what you want. And that is why that while boys your age grew into manhood, you just got older, hairier and more irritating.
And more vulnerable to being exploited.
The self help gurus have zeroed in on that one like chicken hawks and turned your feelings about your feelings into a cash cow. For a fee, they tell you to express your feelings, write them down, trust them, affirm them, discuss them in groups, put them in a journal, confront people with them, list them, learn more words for them, read about them, mouth them through a sock puppet like a neurotic ventriloquist and above all, get them validated as something sacred by all in your life.
That have led you to attend the Church of Emotionalism, where your tears are holy and Kleenex are passed right along with the collection plate. Can I get an amen?
But they aren’t telling you anything really different than the same bullshit you have been told your whole life, and that you now tell yourself. When you have pain, or even a sense of slight annoyance, someone else is supposed to by God fix it.
And so you remain, born again baby that you are, stuck in self delusion until you get some things straight.
Despite what your therapist told you, or what you saw on Oprah, your feelings don‘t have any inherent value compared to say, facts, logic or a good cheeseburger. Most of the feelings you think are so important are as transient as campaign promises and worth just about as much attention.
What you feel right now won’t be the same thing you feel in a few hours, or, if you are like a lot of women, in a few minutes. So expecting your man to stand constantly at the ready, as though his purpose in life is to validate and honor every fleeting emotion you have at each and every point of their temporary existence is a non starter. If that is what you expect, you don’t need a relationship, you just need a better therapist.
And the same for taking your relationship straight into turmoil because you use your feelings to undermine communications every time a logical solution undermines your agenda.
You know exactly what I am talking about. The more reason and logic point to your being wrong, the more unreasonable and illogical you become. It is calculated and intentional. It’s the tried and true plan of “If being reasonable doesn’t get me what I want, I will just be increasingly unreasonable till I get it anyway.” Nothing like frustrating someone into compliance.
And in a really twisted, perverted way, it makes sense. Heck, you’re a slave to your feelings, why shouldn’t everyone else be?
For a while, in many cases, it even seems to work. But it ultimately blows up in your face because all this nonsense is just a recipe for him to eventually cook up a great big casserole dish full of fuck-this-crazy-bitch.
Are you feeling me?
Ladies, the only real purpose for your feelings is to tell you there is a problem you need to fix. After that, continuing to dwell on them, or childishly forcing your partner to obsess on them with you, only keeps you from finding solutions.
It may annoy him into fixing things for you, as surely as you were still laying in a crib, but at this point in your life that is only to shut you up, and leaves you less respected, and less respectable, every time it happens. And so when your man gives in to this, he isn’t meeting your emotional needs, and you certainly aren’t meeting his. All you have accomplished is pressuring him into changing your diaper.
If you think that is the path to a healthy relationship, think again. Jerking people around on an emotional leash is only good thing if you are a psychopath.
Hostility will always be the natural result for people who use emotions not to connect or to create intimacy, but as a weapon to control and manipulate. It is hostility well deserved.
Now, there has been a long running misconception about men and women that has been around about as long as igneous rock. That is that women are somehow more gifted in the emotional department than men.
Of course, that’s more bullshit. Training half the population to be childish, emotional puppeteers in ways that ultimately sabotage their own emotional fulfillment is hardly a gift. It is more like a cruel joke. And it may seem funny with you are 20. But it may seem much different at 45 when you are rapidly graying, cooking for one, and wondering why so many men get tired of listening to you in about 5 minutes.
With that in mind, if you want to see evidence of real emotional acumen, consider the following names:
Shakespeare, Keats, Hemmingway, Steinbeck, Gibran, Kipling, Blake, Wordsworth, Byron and Shelly. Or even the great contemporary songwriters, Simon, King, Kristofferson, Dylan, Hiatt, Lovett and Henley. This list is a drop in the bucket, and if we added to it till we covered every genius in world history in the realm of the human heart, we would have to address 95% of them as mister.
In fact, truth be known, most of the men in your life who you have dismissed as emotional zeros more likely belong on that list than you do. You just never knew it because you are such an emotional mess.
Feminists would tell you that this is sexism, and perhaps they are right, though as usual for the wrong reasons.
It may well be sexist to the core to raise half the population, your half, to be emotional cripples while telling them they are emotional giants.
Dr. Paul on Youtube
Dr. Paul is a pseudonym only. The author of this article, Paul Elam, is not a qualified medical or psychiatric professional and does not purport to offer counseling, psychiatric services, or expert psychological advice.
{ 190 comments… read them below or add one }
This post is golden. Especially the bits about the Church of Emotionalism and being sexist with respect to feelings.
Men’s feelings have no value because they cause women to feel guilty.
And we wouldn’t want women feeling guilty, because, horrors, they would fast realise that _actions have consequences_!.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Excellent post. Relationship wise, there’s nothing worse than being around a female (or anyone but my experience on this subject is with women) controlled by her feelings. Better to be alone.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Actually, I was thinking about this on the bus a few weeks ago, and I had an epiphany. Feelings are more significant in some ways than thoughts. The reason is that, phenomenologically speaking, feelings have a certainty and a reality that thought does not. A feeling may be based on nothing, but its reality cannot be denied. However a thought can be completely false. Thus, one can say an hour later, “Rightly or wrongly, I felt sad then”, but you can never say, “My thought then was definitely true”.
Feelings are qualia, like pain or the perception of colour. They are undeniable. In a sense, women are right to take their feelings more seriously than their reasoning.
That said, I think the only sensible thing for a man to do, when dealing with a woman, is to try hard not to be overly affected by his woman’s feelings. That is, unless she is, say, sad because her dog has died, it is probably best to ignore her feelings. Regrettably perhaps, if one adds to this the need to ignore most of what she presents as thoughts, one is left with very little that she does or says that is worth responding to. So, as the Greek philosophers used to say, that leaves us with an aporia (a total puzzle).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I think you may be confusing the existence of the phenomena with its truth or appropriateness.
E.g., you can say ‘I had a feeling an hour ago’. But you could also say ‘I had a thought an hour ago’.
Similarly, you can say ‘I was wrong to feel that way’, just as you could say ‘I was incorrect to think that’.
In this way, there’s really not much difference, in terms of the significance or truthfulness of thoughts vs feelings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Snark,
My point is that feelings are undeniably real. They are like pain. When you are in pain, you have no doubt that you are in pain. And you have no doubt afterwards that you were in pain. But a man could believe the most beautiful mathematical theorem for a year, and it could turn out to be false.
Therefore, in a sense, feelings have primacy over thoughts.
I think I understand your point about appropriateness of feelings, but it is very natural to privilege the feeling of the moment. For example, if you are at a rock concert, and you are carried away with emotion, that is undeniable. Later someone may convince you – or you may come to feel when you are more mature – that rock music is not good music and that your feelings were in some sense not appropriate. Maybe you should have been appreciating Mozart instead. But it is still undeniable that you had the feelings you did, and in reality it can be very hard to invalidate them as inappropriate.
If I say, I fancy brunettes with nice legs; and you say, I like blondes with big tits; there is no way to rationally decide the issue. All we are left with is our feelings. In fact, one of the areas in which men can be a little absurd (leaving aside the veritable continents of female absurdity for a moment) is when they argue vehemently about issues that cannot logically be decided, such as which football team has a more admirable playing style, or some such thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe instead of appropriateness, I mean legitimacy.
Two ways to measure feelings, then: legitimacy, and their existence.
They are true in the sense of existence: they cannot be said to not exist. But they may not be legitimate. Exactly the same as thoughts.
Pain is a more intense ‘feeling’ than that which I had in mind: it’s not possible to be wrong about pain, I agree. But perhaps the equivalent in terms of thought is a self-evident truth: one that is so obviously true that it cannot be denied, just as the legitimacy of feeling physical pain cannot be denied.
I have to admit though, I was thinking ‘feelings’ in terms of ‘emotions’, which may be illegitimate just as thoughts may be untrue; but this has no bearing on the existence of either, which would always be true.
Well, I agree. Not everything has an objectively measurable, single answer. Many things don’t. I guess I’m just stuck on this idea that thoughts and feelings can be separated out, as such. It’s my view that the one heavily influences the other, and vice versa.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I think what many men fail to regard is that men and women also have different “purposes” in their feelings. Women are far more in tune to “feelings” and “emotions” than men are… and… they are often a woman’s weapons that are used in a similar fashion to a man’s physical strength.
Therefore, men ought to always be on the ball about women’s “emotions”:
Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
This is really unflattering for women, really, when you think about it, because there are only two explanations for emotional manipulation, and that is:
1 – They don’t realize what they are doing, and are therefore not very bright.
2 – They do realize what they are doing and just don’t care, and are therefore not very moral… one might even use the word amoral.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Copying and pasting this entire chunk of text – there’s your answer and wisdom about women, still relevant even for our time.
Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid, reasoning good sense, I never in my life knew one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humour always breaks in upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any systems of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they have been capable of forming. A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humours and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly, forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with, serious matters, though he often makes believe he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of, for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which, by the way, they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man, who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them: I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it. No flattery is either too high or too low for them. They will greedily swallow the highest, and gratefully accept of the lowest; and you may safely flatter any woman, from her understanding, down to the exquisite taste of her fan. Women who are either indisputably beautiful, or indisputably ugly, are best flattered upon the score of their undestandings: but those who are in a state of mediocrity are best flattered upon their beauty, or at least their graces; for every woman who is not absolutely ugly thinks herself handsome, but not hearing often that she is so, is the more grateful and the more obliged to the few who tell her so: whereas a decided and conscious beauty looks upon every tribute paid to her beauty only as her due, but wants to shine and to be considered on the side of her understanding: and a woman who is ugly enough to know that she is, knows that she has nothing left for it but her understanding, which is, consequently (and probably in more senses than one) her weak side.
- Lord Chesterfield, Letters to his Son
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Tell the distinguished lady she knows a lot, and tell the ugly one she’s beautiful. A woman wants to be admired for her “intangibles”, but at the same time wants the men who exhibits the very tangible quantities of dominance, power, respect or money.
Too funny.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@Fedrz
People are waking up to this, in the sense of a woman in a relationship with a rotten man – either she didn’t know he was rotten, in which case what good is it being the nice guy if she is too stupid to appreciate it,
OR
the rottenness attracted her, in which case she’s a liar.
Hence why the women in just-concluded bad relationships say “but at least I got rid of him”. Ahahaha, you got “rid of him” after giving him sex but before you got commitment from him.
Talk about closing the barn after the horse has fled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I lol’d
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
feelings have primacy over thoughts
If you let them there.You start thinking good about yourself and you would feel happy, start thinking bad about about yourself and you would feel sadness.They go around in circles, but unless you let go of your feelings you can’t think clearly and rationally.
But a thought should be borne out of rationality and not feeling, because
a feeling can only be felt by you, a thought goes out to all those who can understand the reason behind it.A feeling is evanescent, reason stands the test of time.
Pain is a feeling but most importantly it’s not muddled by what your brain contrives it to be.Such unmitigated feelings are rare, very rare but even then they should not be allowed to take over reason.Being in pain does not give me a reason do anything that I want or to impose my feelings over anyone.Simlarly women shouldn’t be allowed to debate topics on basis of their feelings which are much vainer than physical pain and their primary source of thoughts.
I feel sad – Men are pigs.
I feel good – Being a bitch is my right.
I feel that she is correct and he is wrong, no matter the statistics he links to seem to be closer to truth – You’re a misogynist, you go girl.
“In a sense, women are right to take their feelings more seriously than their reasoning.”
In a sense they are wrong too, and therein lies the fault when placing primacy of feelings over thoughts.You can only get a sense of greyness with feelings, right and wrong have to be had from reasoning.A math theorem can be wrong but unlike your phases of feeling it will lead you somewhere and not around in circles. Greyness is cool in today’s movies but having a sense of right and wrong is a must in life.
You can feel sadness at a woman’s tears in a TV serial and then think of how bad men are or you can think about how unfairly men are treated in reality and then feel angry about it.One of them is right, but you will have to learn to think without feelings corrupting your thoughts first.
Feelings that we ‘generally’ have are a true result of social conditioning and everyday experiences.These feelings are a social construct because what feelings should be have from an experience hold different meanings in different socities and different points in time.A woman can feel good in India doing her housework, maybe in the next 50 years she wouldn’t, maybe 50 years earlier she felt happier.Maybe if they had TV back then she wouldn’t have. And so on.
Reasoning with nature has led us to civilisation, feeling good about it has given us literature and feeling bad about men has given us feminism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent piece. Feelings are interpretations of an inner, emotional state. (I know this is a difficult concept since our consciousness normally mix feelings and emotions up, but as a starter it may be an eye-opener to try to tell them apart) As interpretations they are prone to become the subject of what our social environment tells us what they ‘should be’, for whatever reasons, and in that way they can trick us into believing that what we feel has a direct relation to the real thing, our emotions. Studies have shown that women are especially vulnerable in this respect. When I communicate that my feelings are the only reality that has to be taken into account, I effectively communicate that the only thing that matters is me and how I interpret my inner state, and I don’t care about the rest. Depending on the situation it may work for some time, but in the end it won’t. This kind of one-way-street communication eventually leads to no communication at all.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
mouth them through a sock puppet like a neurotic ventriloquist
Now THAT’S some funny stuff right there. Brilliant!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very good piece, Paul!
I think juxtaposing feelings and logic creates a false dichotomy. Both have their place. Feelings are “real” in the sense that the experience of them is real. It is generally better to experience them rather than to pretend that they do not exist, because at least some of them are, as Paul points out, signals of issues that need to be addressed. That’s a healthy way of “dealing with” feelings.
However, the current therapy culture would often have us wallow in feelings — which is not useful or healthy in the least. And those who deal with their feelings in a way other than wallowing in them and endlessly obsessing over them (typically men) are problematized — which is just plain silly. There are sex differences around relating to feelings, and I don’t think that either sex’s way of dealing with feelings should be problematized in itself. The trouble today, however, is that the female way of dealing with and expressing feelings has come to be treated as the only “healthy” way to do so, which problematizes almost all men. Neither sex has an intrinsically better approach to dealing with feelings, but each has an approach that is proper to each.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Let’s talk feelings. Actually, forget that. I’ll talk feelings, because if you talk feelings, I won’t get to talk at all.”
Lol!
“Are you feeling me?”
I love it when you talk dirty Dr Paul
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is one of the most exhausting, energy sucking, poisonous attributes which most women seem to have. When this happens and you don’t atleast have a round or two of emotional gymnastics with her, it then just compounds or morphs into something later on that needs discovering and fixing. If you don’t satisfy her by sharing in her emotional insanity then she doesn’t get what she think she needs which just ends up slowly decaying the relationship. Women are so self destructive that way which takes any kind of relationship they are in down with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is not whether or not you have feelings, it is whether or not those feelings control your life. I know alot of people that get depressed because they let thier feelings control thier life. Women generally internalise thier emotions and get depressed if they are not able to manage them.
Men get depressed too, but it is epressed in a different way. When men have an emotion they can not manage they drink or do drug or they get angry and yell, hit, hurt or destroy things. Depression in men is often misdiagnosed because thier symptoms are different from womens.
Just because it is different does not mean that it is better, a woman crying in the corner and a man punching a wall are both letting thier emotions control thier lives.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Canadian Girl, what fucking nonsense are you talking about?
If anyone internalizes their feelings, it is men, because nobody gives a fuck about their feelings. The reason they drink is because they know they are alone, and the reason they punch a hole in the wall is because nobody will listen, especially the woman who is supposed to.
Women blab and blobber all over the damn place – even on Oprah. Hell, they even try it on Men’s websites!
What planet do you live on?
You sexist piglet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
A fine essay.
I might add that it is not by training alone that men and women differ in behavior.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is it sexist to say that when men and women can not manage thier emotions that they express it in a different way. Women get sad, men get angry.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
More commonly, men don’t get angry. That’s the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Canadian Girl- Both men and women in our society suffer from anger and drug and alcohol dependency. Women have the added advantage of social programs and the justice system being completely centered on their needs and blatantly discriminating against men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
fredz – I am detecting alot of anger. Are you in control of your emotions, or are they controling you?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Men have the potential to be startlingly deep and emotional creatures, but they repress it after a lifetime of being abused and ridiculed by women for having emotions. To a woman, a man’s only purpose is to robotically serve a utility. A farmer does not give a shit if his donkey’s feelings are hurt. Furthermore, women line up around the block to get knocked up by the most cold and sociopathic men. I one time had an ex-girlfriend tell me “Women do not want men to express their emotions, they just want to complain about men not expressing emotions.”
With that said, it is incredibly important for men to be in touch with their emotions, because they are vital to becoming a multidimensional person. It’s all about knowing how to integrate the head and the heart. It is a tragedy for society that modern women are too fucking self-centered and stupid to be able to identify, or encourage, this kind of man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I don’t think women quite realise the energy men put into internalisation nearly every time the two meet.
To put it bluntly, women are really fucking frustrating.
And that has nothing to do with trying to get them into bed, etc. I’m talking about basic shit here. Basic social interactions. They simply cannot go smoothly like they do between men.
A huge amount of energy goes towards internalising the natural response to just snap and lash out or shout at women.
I don’t think they appreciate this fact whatsoever – because men are, for the most part, very good at this. Women grow up never recognising the stress they cause, because men deal with it internally and don’t tend to complain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
It seems what you see is violence, violence, violence.
I see lots of women who lash out and strike first – how many times do we chuckle about a woman kicking a man in the balls, slapping his face, throwing a vase? We just call it “spirit” to not hurt her little feelings.
Women are the major perps of physical child abuse… why?
Most men get angry because they can’t get through to tards like you PLUS, women are viciously manipulating his emotions, plus those around him, as a weapon against him at the same time – known as Social or Relational Aggression – like nagging a man for days straight, and then slapping him in a hissy fit, and calling the police (Social Aggression) when he tries to hold her hands, and bursting into tears in front of them (Social Aggression), and then bawling for weeks about how the abusive bastard was abusive towards her to everyone they both know. (Social and Relational Aggression).
Get a grip you wing nut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@canadian girl
First, I don’t know exactly what you mean by internalising, for me it is that we can internalise what our environment tells us how our feelings are supposed to be. For instance in the process of internalising moral standards during our upbringing. And in this process ‘internalise’ what was once an outside reality. It becomes our ‘inside’ reality. In this case, during the process, we run actually the danger that the interpretation of our emotions is replaced by what the environment has told us what the emotion should be and loose the internal connection. While living in the illusion that we ‘feel connected’. The question then arises what or who exactly is controlling your life in this situation..
Second, when it comes to keeping emotions inside and trying to solve them in a practical way I have the impression that men are their own worst enemies in this regard, they are very good at it. And so, this can lead to keeping the emotions ‘inside’ when no solutions are available. One of the indicators being far more men then women using suicide to solve this problem. And whether women or men are better in yelling, drug abuse, destroying and so on is an open question. I would say that at this moment, because of decades of suppressing male emotional expressions, women have more opportunities.
This subject is not about what is better from a moral standpoint, the ‘usual’ male way or the ‘usual’ female way. That is exactly the trap we should try to avoid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They want you to be open to emotional manipulation, but they don’t want you to actually express your own feelings – if you do, you will be told to “take it like a man,” which really means “take it like a slave,” i.e., don’t speak up about those transgressions made against you.
It’s like the toilet seat thing – they don’t really care one way or the other. It is completely about control. They are little totalitarians who get their power trips and feel important if they can modify a man’s behaviour in some way – especially his private behaviour, and especially through shame.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Ladies, the only real purpose for your feelings is to tell you there is a problem you need to fix. After that, continuing to dwell on them, or childishly forcing your partner to obsess on them with you, only keeps you from finding solutions.
This entire article was brilliant, Dr. Paul, but especially this part. My Dad always told me that feelings are what should compel you take a step back and evaluate a situation with logic and reason. If something is upsetting, rather than dwell on it, look at the root cause and ponder what can be done to fix it. If you are upset about finances, see this as the starting point for a budget and serious personal finances goal. If you feel slobby and unfit, get out for a power walk or work through an exercise DVD. If you are upset about something in your relationship, step back and see what you are really upset about, usually it has more to do with *you* than your partner. So on and so forth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Snark-
A skyscraper-full of philosophers could actually spend a lifetime writing about this phenomenon -Women punish men for having emotions and for not having emotions.-
But once a man realizes that, they can just say “fuck these stupid bitches” and go their own way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They want you to be open to emotional manipulation, but they don’t want you to actually express your own feelings – if you do, you will be told to “take it like a man,” which really means “take it like a slave,” i.e., don’t speak up about those transgressions made against you.
Sad but true. Emotional expression humanizes men, no longer allowing them to be seen as an emotionless robot who can take whatever is thrown his way.
Many women also will take legitimate points based on logic and attempt to twist said points into emotional drivel, claiming a man (or another woman) needs to get over their issue, rather than facing a real problem with maturity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Which is the correct response, Emotional Dude.
By the way, I like what your name represents, which you mentioned up there. Men should be ‘in touch’ with their emotions, but this certainly doesn’t mean (as feminists and women think) that men should be less masculine.
Indeed, having emotions under one’s control, is the exact definition of being ‘in touch’ with them.
If one is not ‘in touch’ with them in this sense, he is more likely to come across as unbalanced, and ironically enough, more emotional and less masculine.
Stoicism, to me, means being in touch with, and being capable of managing, your emotional state. And stoicism is very masculine indeed. People can rely on someone who is stoic. He won’t let them down on an emotional whim. He manages to compartmentalise, so to speak, his obligations and his pursuits, from his own personal emotional state. That’s not to say that the latter should be ignored, but that it shouldn’t interfere with the former.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To clarify, when I say ‘obligations’, I am of course not referring to chivalrous / White Knight codes.
Also, there is a case to be made for interfering with the former (obligations or pursuits) when they are the cause of a negative emotional state. But this can be done in a stoic way simply by making the necessary changes, without relying on others to fix one’s own problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I did not say that men do not have emotions, they just respond differently when overwhelmed. I knew a couple in the midst of divorce and he broke a window and busted some furniture and she hurt herself. He was just as hurt as she was but reacted differently. He was not a bad person for what he did, it was understandable given the situation. Both reactions generally reflect what each of the genders do in a given situation, good or bad.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Snark-
Absolutely. Many of the classic archetypes of men in world mythologies were very in touch with their emotions. Fer deeper, actually, than any modern woman having a perpetual temper tantrum.
True masculinity uses the intellect and the heart in pursuit of science, art, accomplishments, and a more evolved society.
True femininity can do this too, by the way. But try telling that to these wenches…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Canadian girl :
‘Both reactions generally reflect what each of the genders do in a given situation, good or bad.’ I assume that this reflects your view of the world, the supposed generality of the reactions. I beg to differ. Especially your idea about ‘he was not a bad person ….’ tells me something about how you suppose to be what the emotions are, and how they are related to what your environment probably has told you what to expect and what is bad and good. You suppose that the emotions were overwhelming. Personally, I haven’t got a clue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I did not say that men do not have emotions, they just respond differently when overwhelmed. I knew a couple in the midst of divorce and he broke a window and busted some furniture and she hurt herself. He was just as hurt as she was but reacted differently. He was not a bad person for what he did, it was understandable given the situation. Both reactions generally reflect what each of the genders do in a given situation, good or bad. Canadian Girl
How much you want to bet that he busted a window and broke some furniture because he had been trying, and trying, and trying to please her, communicate with her, to fix their relationship and so on, and she had been just plain unco-operative and emotionally abusive and manipulative for months before hand?
Most times when a divorce happens, the woman has decided 3 to 6 months beforehand that the marriage is over, and bides her time for the right opportunity to end it, and uses that time to emotionally punish the man… and turn him into a raving lunatic. Often she will try to blame him for failing to communicate properly when that has been what he has been desperately trying to do – while she never had any intention of listening anyways, it is just about punishing the man and proving that she was right in leaving him. Pathetic.
We aren’t all “boys” you know. Some of us are out of our teens and have a bit of experience with women even!
And by the way, this couple, who told you these stories about their relationship? Him or her?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Canadian Girl
There were about ten different places in this article where I had to reign myself in to maintain focus and keep the length reasonable. The most difficult of those areas was the realm of men’s emotions, and, of course, many women’s convoluted notions of what they are supposed to be about.
Ah, but thank god for comment sections where we get to expand on these things and get living examples of the problem, as you present here.
A woman crying in the corner may be a woman not in control, or it may just be a woman in pain and/or grieving. Either way, it is a piss poor example to point to someone being out of control emotionally.
It is the same for men punching a wall. You clearly don’t get what most people don’t get about men’s emotions, and especially the social mechanisms that are in place to make enforce a world view that denies they have any.
I think men need to punch more walls. It might keep them from killing a few people. Usually people who think like you do.
Your fundamental problem, and it is written all over your sexist post, is that you view men as appliances, reduced to mere utility. And yes, I can easily infer that from your post.
I said in the piece, when talking about teaching men to manage emotions, that it was a good thing “unless taken too far,” and it is. But what I could have done was add another 1,500 words on what “taken too far” actually means.
The real repression of men’s feelings comes not from parents trying to get them to mature, but from the social expectation that they serve at the whim of emotional women who will be constantly reminded of their narcissism and shallowness if men display any sensitivity toward themselves.
Women don’t just need men to be without tears, but also without anger or any other intense emotion unless it serves the cause of the woman. After all, how can a man serve the purpose of being a captive audience to women talking about themselves if men have the pesky problem of having selves to be concerned about, too?
So emotional men, which is just another way of saying men who have a healthy measure of self interest, are rejected as weak and unmanly. This, of course, goes back to the core problem that what most women want is a machine; an ATM with a strap on penis that can emulate listening and empathy well enough to satisfy a woman’s needs, but not genuinely enough to have needs of their own.
The guy who puts his fist through a wall is often the one who is just expressing a very healthy “fuck all that.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Ivo Vos
Internalising emotions generally means harming oneself emotionally or physically when there are emotions that can not be managed.
Women are far more likely to get depressed and have eating disorders (internal).
Men are far more likely get angry and can become violent (external).
Obviously both reactions are not healthy, but neither is better than the other, just different.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
canadian girl,
I think your basic failing in your assertions is this: you are comparing the anger of men to the sadness of women. Men have an appropriate analogue for comparison to women’s sadness–it is men’s sadness. When you compare men’s anger to women’s sadness (by calling them both depression) you trivialize it (in the view of at least some men here).
I agree with the fundamentals of this position–namely that you have completely and utterly failed in understanding the emotions of men–but at this point my reaction is no longer the anger evident in Fedrz response, but rather pity. Your failure is typical of the efforts of one gender trying to model the emotions of the other: your failure ultimately is in the idea that if emotional states have similar causes in two different people, then the states themselves must be similar. This is very much not true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I should be more clear: when I say that I agree with the fundamentals of this position, I meant that I was in agreement with Fedrz. I had not yet seen Paul’s response, and I’m not in agreement with your position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul,
“That kind of self control is a pretty good skill that comes in handy for a lot of things, like, say, being an adult”
GOLD..I laughed my arse off!! Keep it up!!!
“If “big boys don’t cry,” doesn’t work, then, “I’ll give you something to cry about,” usually does, especially after a few rounds of following through.”
Yep..I got plenty of this…and my son got a bit of this as well…he was a very good boy…..in his whole life he only ever had ONE tantrum and that was when he was 2 and it was about wanting to brush his teeth more than was good for him and I took the toothpaste off him. How about that. A kid who’s only tantrum was wanting to brush his teeth. Kids don’t come much better than that…must have had a good dad..
My daughter was a freaking basketcase with her feewings. At 14 she suddenly developed a phobia of being upstairs in the house even when there was all of us downstairs….and she STILL used to come into our bed because she was ‘scared’……it is impossible to imagine a man tolerating his 14 year old boy being ‘scared’ of being upstairs or coming into your bed because he is ‘scared’. He’d be smacked on the arse and told to ‘grow up’. Whereas my wife told me the best thing to do for my daughter was ‘validate her feelings’. This is so bad that when we were in marriage counselling the woman doing that used to say ‘you need to validate your wifes feelings’ to which I would respond ‘No, her feelings are not justified on fact, they are a complete fantasy and I am not indulging her fantasy because that is only going to keep the fantasy going. Tell her to grow up and live in the real world’.
As for women and their feewings…fuck me…I am so happy not to have a woman in my house pissing in my ear about her feewings 24×7. I shit you not I have had my wife come into the bedroom in the morning in tears bawling her eyes out many times with shit like this…
“I’m so unhappy, I am so depressed, I just want to die…blah..blah…blah”
“Really, why this time?”
“It’s raining and cloudy and dark outside and it is really MAKING ME VERY DEPRESSED”
I have NO IDEA how many times I had THAT conversation when we were living in Ireland. Women have feewings that fleetingly change from second to second and SOMETHING or SOMEONE ELSE is ALWAYS responsible for them. When a person can’t take responsibility for their feelings they are a child. Married men know ALL ABOUT this endlessly changing of feewings that we are somehow supposed to magically morph into ‘happiness’ because, you know, the MAN is RESPONSIBLE for the womans feewings….when the weather is not that is. I was so sick and tired of this shit by the end of my marriage, I really was.
Men…One thing that I have realised over the last year is pointed to by this article. I used to say to my ex ‘you are acting like a child, you have to grow up and be an adult. It’s like having three children in the house. I want a wife who is an adult, not a wife who consistently acts like a child’. I only realised about a year ago that women ARE children and so can not actually grow up. One of the reasons I will never allow a woman in my house again is because I now know they ARE children. The women really throw a LOT of hatred my way when I say that but, by ANY definition, women ARE children. You just need to understand their deceptions to understand this. The only way I would allow a woman in my house again is under a contract where she forfeits ALL her property and rights to me and be required to obey my word as a command. That is how you treat children properly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
fredz
He was my friend and he left her. Both were devastated by the divorce and by the end they were both treating each other very badly. Fortunately they rebuilt their relationship and now share custody of the kids.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Remember back in the 80s when Phil Donahue epitomized the “sensitive man” concept? There was this big idea that men should be more emotionally sensitive and in touch with their feelings. Women pushed this more than anyone with the underlying concept being that men are simply broken women and if men acted more like women in regards to their emotions, everything would be fine.
What a huge fucking failure that was.
Women promptly responded by asking “where are all the real men?”
Far too many men kowtow to the fleeting and ever-changing emotions of women. Honestly, when I stopped caring about how women feel, life for me got so much better. Women show their essential weakness when they allow their emotions to control their lives. This is the weakness of children, not adults.
It’s been said before here, women are more like 11-year old kids when it comes to emotional control. I used to expect more from women. Now I just treat them like the children that they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Crucial info.
If this doesn’t get them to stop quoting Lord Barnfield, Fodoyevsky and even (drumroll)
Blomgvberg & Rutting
and get Somebody to
Do Something -
nuthin’ will
mout
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Canadian girl :
Not being able to manage your own emotions and harming yourself in one way or another might or might not be related in my view. I have a vague understanding what you mean by internalizing, but when it is supposed to mean the same thing as harming yourself I like to stay with ‘harming yourself’, if only to attempt to reduce confusion. Further more, I stick by what I learnt about the term internalizing at the uni, and of course, I expect you to stick with your definition. Just that we understand our differences. The term ‘healthy’ might relate to what in your worldview is supposed to be healthy. The term has a lot of morality embedded as part of a worldview, the late Dr. Clare Graves has expanded on this difficult subject in a quite remarkable way. It is exactly what I mean by feelings as interpretations of emotions and how your environment has told you what they are supposed to be and how you have internalized them. They are now part of your view of the world, your reality. The working of the human mind is always wonderful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Depression is how women express sadness, anger and disapointment in an unhealthy way. When men express sadness, grief or disapointment in an unhealthy way it comes across as anger and rage. If a man is angry and drinks alot he might be depressed.
“Men may turn to alcohol or street drugs when they are depressed, or become frustrated, discouraged, angry, irritable and, sometimes, violently abusive. ” http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40336
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Now here’s a real life example
that will inspire
the youth
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Here’s an item Welmer should sell if he starts a Spearhead Store:
Don’t Get Married Without One!
Thanks for posing, Canadian Girl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Globalman
I had the “pleasure” of raising two step daughters, one of whom had allegedly been sexually abused by a teenage boy when she was six (six years before I met her mother).
Her life was constant emotional turmoil, and attempts, often successful, to create turmoil in the life of others. She used suicide threats regularly as a way to get attention and control. Eventually we had her hospitalized for her problems (the most peaceful month I had in that marriage).
We got the mandate from her therapists to validate this and that, ad infinitum, which also turned into handing her power to control the entire family with her craziness. We were especially admonished to take her threats of suicide very seriously.
After a year of this utter bullshit, I got fed up. We were sitting at dinner one evening when she told us after being grounded that if the restriction wasn’t lifted she would kill herself.
I pulled a five spot out of my wallet, SLAMMED it on table and said, “Take this to the drug story, buy a pack of razor blades and fucking DO IT!!”
“This way, you can make room for someone who wants to live, and we don’t have to listen to your bullshit any more.”
She never made another threat again. And she actually started getting better after that.
Go figure, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
fedrz January 29, 2010 at 04:38
“Women are far more in tune to “feelings” and “emotions” than men are”.
Actually, I disagree. Just because women spray this shit like a fountain 24×7 doesn’t mean they are more ‘in tune’ with their feelings any more than a leaky tap is more ‘in tune’ with water. Men have class. We know adults don’t need to spray negative emotions and feelings all over everyone nearby them in an attempt at ‘attention whoring’ which is what women talking about their feelings are doing…attention whoring. Men know that a positive and happy attitude where ever they are helps promote the productivity of the group.
In the UK there was a good example of this lately. A soldier who got both his legs blown off jokes with his mates ‘just call me shorty’. Yet a woman who was made a ‘beafeater’, an elite military position, had all her hair fall out and was on ‘stress leave’ because she had been ‘bullied’ by the other men and someone had even, curse the patriarchy, put a yellow sticky lable with some bad comments on her jacket!! I’m not kidding….a few comments and an ‘elite female guard’ needs to be placed on sick leave and the guy with his legs blown off can joke about it. Men are ALL CLASS, women are ALL CRAP when it comes to adversity. I think we should laugh at and ridicule the weakness of women until they back off the ‘equal’ bullshit they go on with. When they say ‘equal before the law’ and it is enforced we can quit ridiculing them. While they say ‘equal’ we should just laugh in their faces because the claim IS laughable.
I am a good example of a man in touch with his feelings. And there are plenty like me. When my son had cancer and I did not know if he would live or die I had to keep working. While working I would occasionally be so overcome with grief and stress I would just get up from my chair and go to the mens room and wheep silently in a stall. This would happen 2-3 times a day for the 3 months his life hung in the balance with no prognosis one way or the other. Was I in touch with my feelings? Of course I was! Did I need to spray those feelings all over the place attention whoring? No! When the time was right, I told my colleagues about my sons cancer.
fedrz January 29, 2010 at 08:29
“Canadian Girl, what fucking nonsense are you talking about?”
Dude, she is a woman. You know only crap can come from her brain. Just ignore her. Stop encouraging the wimmin to post…it drives me crazy scrolling over all the crap the wimmin post to find the gems like MGTOW just posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Dr. Paul January 29, 2010 at 09:47
Yep….that was a good response. Women ‘attempt’ suicide something like 10x more often than men and succeed something like 1/3 as often as men. Women can’t even do suicide properly. Suicide ‘attempts’ are much more about attention whoring than anything else.
I too raised a step-daughter and step-son. The step daughter turned against me quite sharply when she was about 12. Could not even be civil to me. Eating meals refused to even respond to ‘hello’ or ‘how was your day’. When she would ask me to drive her some where she would sit silent in the car the whole way.
On one phone call with her she burst into tears about how she felt her mother had constantly lied to her and I counselled her that her mother was a liar and she just had to get used to it. Since she was talking to me (from the other side of the planet) when she came out of the bedroom on that call and it had been obvious she had been crying my MIL then assumed and spread the story I had ‘abused’ her and ‘made her cry’. Women really are such crap. The man is always at fault. I am sick of the ‘victim’ and child mentality and quite frankly depopulation of these princesses is just fine by me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
And here is where you’ve flown completely off the rails. In your first sentence, depression is the expression of emotion. In the rest of your paragraph, and in the quoted text, depression is an emotional state.
The usual understanding is the latter, rather than the former–depression is a kind of emotional state that often causes sadness, anger, and frustration to be expressed in unhealthy ways, not the unhealthy expressions themselves. But the emotions of sadness and anger are still different, and trying to understand men’s anger as being “like women’s sadness” or vice-versa is a mistake. Trying to talk about men’s depression as being like women’s depression is only slightly less of a mistake. Trying to assert that men voicing anger are necessarily depressed is flying completely off of the rails, and serves as an excellent example of the sort of behavior that is being complained about in this post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Globalman,
“Women are far more in tune to “feelings” and “emotions” than men are”. — Fedrz
Actually, I disagree. Just because women spray this shit like a fountain 24×7 doesn’t mean they are more ‘in tune’ with their feelings any more than a leaky tap is more ‘in tune’ with water. — Globalman
That’s not what I mean. I mean women are more in tune to feelings and emotions for a purpose.
Women know far better than men how to manipulate emotions and feelings to get what they want. Men go in a straight line to get what they want, but women manipulate other people, through feelings and emotions, to get what they want.
Ever wonder why women watch Soap Operas?
It is along the same line as when men watch sports. What men see in baseball, or football, is strategy. They know statistics, they understand plays, they watch it voraciously and study it to death.
Women do the same thing with Soap Operas (or reading women’s magazines). They are all about strategies of emotional manipulation – all indirect. Susie gossips to Brook, faking a story about Bart sleeping with a hooker, knowing that Brook is best friends with Betty, who is married to Bart… but, secretly all along, Susie has eyes for Bart, and causing Betty and Bart to argue and get separated, allows Susie to move in for the kill.
It’s the same thing as a man most likely should never let a woman make him feel guilty over something, because in time, you will find out that the thing she was making him feel guilty about, was just merely an emotional cover to keep him from finding out something devious she was up to. (Had that one happen once too many times!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The main reason not to “validate” feelings is that a lot of the time they are not valid. They are wallowing, attention-whoring and another excuse not to take responsibility.
“I can’t help it, its how I feeeeeeeeeeeel!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Dr. Paul says- “I pulled a five spot out of my wallet, SLAMMED it on table and said, “Take this to the drug story, buy a pack of razor blades and fucking DO IT!! This way, you can make room for someone who wants to live, and we don’t have to listen to your bullshit any more.”
I was molested by a man and by a woman as a child. Had crushing thoughts of suicide as a teenager.
One day my mom said “Well, if you want to kill yourself it’s your choice, but if you do then you’ll die a coward and I think you’re a better person than that.”
Never had another thought of suicide after that. Thanks mom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman, you’re ignoring the utility of having an example of exactly the problem we’re talking about attached directly to the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Emotional Dude
Understood, but I bet that even then you knew the difference between a suicidal thought and a suicidal threat or manipulation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
canadian girl January 29, 2010 at 09:45
“When men express sadness, grief or disapointment in an unhealthy way it comes across as anger and rage.”
You have no idea what you are talking about.
“Remember back in the 80s when Phil Donahue epitomized the “sensitive man” concept? ”
Yep…my ex wanted me to ‘share my feewings’ and be a ‘sensitive new age man’….one of the problems in my marriage was that I truely believed my wife was an adult….like me…if I made a mistake THAT was it.
But, in any case, being married is so crap I can’t really understand what I saw in it….I really can’t. I was so brainwashed that I “needed someone to love” that I “needed” a wife to “make me feel complete”. What a joke I was!! The reality was simple. My wife is a child and needs to be treated like one. And you don’t go telling your children all your feewings….they can’t handle it and it is not their problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Dr. Paul- even then you knew the difference between a suicidal thought and a suicidal threat or manipulation.
Yes, my thoughts of suicide were projected inwardly and I never used it as a threat.
I have never used the molestation as an excuse to claim “victim mentality” either. It happened, it happens to a lot of kids, and it could have been worse. What does not kill me makes me stronger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Globalman
When your ex said that whe wanted you to “share your feelings”, she left off the last part of the sentence: “I want more ammunition.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is so true!
I made the mistake of doing that when I was married. Towards the end of my marriage, I made to be the perfect husband. I did everything my ex-wife wanted me to do (including sharing my feelings) without hesitation. I even kept a written log of what I did.
It only took a few months of this before she called the divorce lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”””””’I pulled a five spot out of my wallet, SLAMMED it on table and said, “Take this to the drug story, buy a pack of razor blades and fucking DO IT!!”
“This way, you can make room for someone who wants to live, and we don’t have to listen to your bullshit any more.”
She never made another threat again. And she actually started getting better after that.
Go figure, eh?
”””””””
Course if you have been telling her she would go to hell for that then it is hard to do. Much better for it to be legal to let a family member to put her ass to sleep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus cries every chapter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When your ex said that whe wanted you to “share your feelings”, she left off the last part of the sentence: “I want more ammunition.” — SteveinTX
I think it is wise for every man to lie about the thing that would bother him the most – that thing he most fears about what may happen, or what most irritates him about what happened in past relationships.
Because sure as shit, when the relationhip with the current one goes down the toilet, you can bet on it that this will be what she will be up to.
They need a little Bre’er Rabbit pulled on them right from the beginning, so you are protected in the end.
For me, the thing that would bug me the the most would be to lose my pride and joy, The Red Rocket.
“Oh, dear! My last woman… it wasn’t the cheating and lying what bothered me so much, but what really irritated the hell out of me was the way she got my car in the court settlement, and then drove it around for years, gloating about it everytime she seen me. It drove me nuts!”
***Punches Hole in Wall*** (For Dramatic Effect)
And, it is best to fake it right away that you are horribly upset, when she tries to piss you off. Pretending that things she does doesn’t bug you, will only make her escalate, and escalate… and escalate, until you explode! After you explode, she knows she properly hurt you, and will move on and never give you a second thought.
Best to fake uncontrollable outrage at her behaviour right away, and get her the hell out of your life.
Then go grudge fuck her best friend – because a woman’s best friend is most often into that, I’ve found. (lol! Don’t do that… but it is true about a woman’s best friend though).
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
No ! Anything but the Red Rocket !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“When men have an emotion they can not manage they drink or do drug or they get angry and yell, hit, hurt or destroy things. ” – canadian girl
Welp, that pretty much confirms her worldview on men. She should go chat with LRaine and Ms Romano, imo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Women are good.
Men are bad.
This is Feminism 101.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Death to values; long live value JUDGEMENTS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s like the toilet seat thing – they don’t really care one way or the other. It is completely about control. They are little totalitarians who get their power trips and feel important if they can modify a man’s behaviour in some way – especially his private behaviour, and especially through shame.
David: I have seen deep economic analyses of this issue, of how the toilet seat problem should be handled in the most efficient way. Long threads of fine discussion, mostly by men. I remember it being discussed on Vox Day’s blog, but elsewhere as well.
To me it seemed yet another example of American men’s reflexive pandering to women. I finally posted that I simply leave the toilet seat up, and snicker to myself when I hear my wife put it down in the middle of the night. I get some harmless amusement out of it …
Don’t take women that seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tell her to put it up, or wipe before she sits. It’s up to her. And leave a sandwich on the bathroom counter when she’s in there.
Peeing for Society!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
And leave a sandwich on the bathroom counter when she’s in there.
LMFAO
Fedrz,
You are an absolute trip.
Damn, I am always hungry after coming to this site!
This should be your avatar -
http://www.dula.tv/blog/picture/i-fucking-love-sandwiches/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Everybody should just keep the damned toilet lid down. (the LID, not the seat.) Otherwise you get dogs drinking out of it and toddlers falling in and drowning. And if you’re REALLY unlucky, you accidentally drop your toothbrush in there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Wow!!! He described every woman I’ve ever known. How is that even possible?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women often say that they want someone who will “make me happy.” I think that is one of the roots of the problem. They get a man, the man’s job is to make her happy. If she isn’t happy, it must be the man’s fault.
Thus, it is appropriate to make the man miserable. By not making her happy, he has made her miserable. It’s the man’s fault! He’s not fulfilling her needs! It’s only fair to make him miserable too.
Also, it’s sad but not surprising that women desire a man who “makes” them do things, as though against her will. He must “make,” ie. force, her to be happy, to laugh, to swoon. He must “take” her breath away, “take” her virginity, “take” her love. A woman, apparently, can never give any of these things freely, and consciously.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Yes, BL, but you are blaming women for being what they are. Things always behave according to their nature. The thing to remember is that most of the old stereotypes about women are true. That is why they are stereotypes. Women are passive in many ways, and they tend to lack agency (women rarely take the initiative, except of course in movies). Naturally they look to men to define them and “make them happy”. Women are physically and emotionally incomplete without a man.
I sometimes think one needs a sort of Ten Maxims of dealing with women.
1. A woman will be what you expect her to be.
2. Most of what women say can best be described as chatter.
3. Women deep down need male leadership.
4. Woman is a relational being.
5. Woman knows herself to be secondary and has contempt for men who make her primary.
6. Women’s feelings are like clouds.
7. Women look for opportunities to suffer.
8. Woman is a question to which man is the answer.
9. An absurd man is a clown; an absurd woman is a woman.
10. Feminism is the social construct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even here I see the meme that “women are more in touch with their emotions”. It’s a crock of shit. They aren’t in touch with them, they are controlled by them, those two things are totally different. If anything men are more in touch with their emotions because they have the presence of mind to be able to control them for the most part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Depression is how women express sadness, anger and disapointment in an unhealthy way.
My sister says, “Depression is just anger without the enthusiasm.”
She’s pretty much right.
Depression is an excuse for (plenty of) women (and some men) sitting around bleating about how miserable they are.
If they’re so miserable, why don’t the just get out of the situation or change their attitude? Life’s too damned short to be miserable and make everyone around you miserable.
I’d say it doesn’t make any sense, but that would be stating the obvious in here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesse,
There is a reason for women and “emotions” and them being more in tune to them – it comes from evolving to raise children, who communicate much more emotionally than rationally. It is the same reason that women mature faster (though not more over time) – nature would not allow a woman’s body to be physically able to produce children, were she not mature enough to care for a child enough to keep it alive.
It’s the same thing as why women can find such satisfaction in cooing and playing with babies for hours and hours. Just like they develop hips and breasts for children, so do they mature faster, and become in tune with emotions – in order to care for children. Think about a lactating woman whose nipples might start leaking milk just from hearing her baby cry. Crying is emotional communication, and women are more in tune with it than men – and, they also know how to use it as a weapon as well.
This is why when you read the old “misogynists” of the past, they often point out that women exist somewhere between children and men, and that men are more fully evolved humans, because as time goes on… men mature beyond those kinds of phases, while nature has held women back more for the purposes of childrearing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know a woman who keeps her emotions under control, doesn’t spray them about, and doesn’t try to manipulate people with them. She keeps herself on a very even keel, though you would never mistake her personality for a man’s. Why do I mention this rare gem? Because she is still a woman, and rejects men for being “not dominant enough”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This is also the reason women are so convinced whatever they think is absolutely true and why they fight so passionately in support of their interests and world-views. Being mothers makes them natural tyrants who don’t have time to deliberate too abstractly – they genuinely do have to deal with beings less knowing and more foolish than themselves: children. The problem is they employ this same psychology in dealing with men with the same natural absolutism, and given any opportunity to rule men they become the very worst of despots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David,
This is good!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahh…That made my day!
Sincerely thanks, Dr. Paul.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jesse
LOL! Where did you see THAT?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women are more in touch with their emotions in the sense that you would be more in touch with electricity if you grabbed a live wire.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I.e. it doesn’t mean you know how to put it to good use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That one doesn’t ring true, IMO.
This supposes that it takes some sort of emotional skill to ascertain that a crying baby needs food, comfort, etc.. Nope, it takes logic, and even more logic to figure out what the baby is crying about. Though in the end, childcare requires a lot less intelligence than most people want to admit.
I think women developed the way they did because manipulative skills suited their survival and personal enhancement much more than logic or intellectual problem solving. This was fine as long as their primary jobs didn’t require more intelligence than changing a diaper or making a cheeseburger. And as relationships have only been based on romance for the last 150 years or so, their lack of logic was easily ignored (or not even noticed to begin with).
But while times have changed, women haven’t, and that is why we have so much angst over relations between the sexes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
2 mothers in the street, both with their sons.
The boys run across the street, but one of them trips and grazes his knee.
both mothers are immiedately and instinctively concerned, untill 1 of the mothers (the mother that is unrelated to the boy that has hurt himself), snaps out of it. she realizes it isnt her son, but she keeps on the mask of concern to boost her own standing with the other mother. secretly, she doesnt really care at all about the son that isnt hers. infact, she wouldnt mind if your little johnny was ”out of the picture’ altogether.
women wear an emotional mask whenever they think it will benefit them. This idea that women are empathic to all is BS, they are only that way with their own, and en masse (when they get the chance), that makes them dangerous to society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Dr. Paul,
I think you can find those types of ascertations from Belfort Bax in the beginning part “The Fraud of Feminism,” and in Weininger’s “Sex and Character.” But I would have to double check to see if those are the correct sources, if it matters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know, guys, men and women are two sides to the same coin.
For example, if men are better capable of addressing the elements of his own accord, due to his brute strength, and the added sharpness of his mind… well, don’t you think that women would have evolved alongside them in a manner that made survival possible for them too? It’s the same way that women are designed to look yummy to men, while men are designed to be attractive to women for other mate values than mere physical appearance – we both evolved alongside eachother, not on separate planets.
I think Schopenhauer mentioned things about this in regard to women’s emotions & mental capacity as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol, and also, Angry Harry has an article on his website about this somewhere, and at the bottom, there is a study that illustrates that the more affected by your emotions that you are, the less capable you are of “thinking.”
I did a quick search on his site, but it didn’t come up. I’ll have a look around for these things later, but first, I need a nap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I view women as a parasite on men. Atracting him with sex, manipulating his emotions.
Sometimes it reminds me of those wasps that they their eggs inside catterpillars.
the lava secrete a chemical that changes the males biochemistry to make it a more hospitable place for them. untill they burst out of the caterpillars head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Ferdz
I agree, but think this supports my point rather than conflicts with it, especially when you compare the historical ideal you presented here with some modern day realities.
As a matter of fact, I think a comparative analysis shows that he departure from the old gender roles is now taking us through the social equivalent of a psychotic episode. And it explains a lot of things, from feminism, to the MRM and MGTOW.
All this because of an important caveat in the historical model. Acknowledging that men and women are different sides to the same point, it infers a fundamentally cooperative element, even a kind of symbiosis in our coexistence.
Throughout history the realm of competition, related to gender, has always been men vs. men and women vs. women, fitting in well with natural selection. It worked pretty well for a long, long time.
But now it is women vs men, for I honestly believe the very first time in human history. We are, in effect, not just different sides of the same coin any more. We are battling each other to own the coin. And women are winning because of the nature of the old paradigm which evolved women’s skills to feed off male energy and taught men to allow and encourage it, even defining our ability to offer that energy up as being a part of the “fittest” in the survival game.
Whether we backtrack to attribute this to agrarian society, the industrial revolution, feminism or even the rising MRM, it will always bring us back to the unavoidable impasse. Where women’s survival was once contingent on male support, that time is over. Any continued female reliance on survival skills from the old paradigm in an age when it is not necessary results not in the yin and yang of strengths and weaknesses that unify for the overall good, but in a welfare program practiced on the SPECIES level. It is, in effect, interspecies parasitism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Men Are More Intelligent Than Women? – By Sir Angry Harry
On Start the Week, on Radio 4, tonight, Jeremy Paxman asked Professor Susan Greenfield, well-known neuroscientist (and Director of the Royal Institution) “You claim, don’t you, that the more emotion you have, the less mind you have?”
“That’s right,” she answered.
Indeed, it is one of the main propositions in her new book, The Private Life of the Brain.
She went on to say, “[For example] One might say that, in meditation, one is developing a very deep consciousness, where you are accessing your inner states, and ignoring the outside world. This could be an example of where you are NOT experiencing an emotion, as such. The opposite would be, [perhaps], a baby, or someone with road rage, or a bungy jumper, awash with emotions and who is not [therefore] ‘accessing’ [with the mind] the past, or the future, or anything ‘inside’.”
Thus, Prof Greenfield is saying that the more ‘emotion’ you experience, the less ‘mind’ you have.
Now, which of the two possible genders, statistically speaking, experiences more emotion – and would claim to?
——————————————————
Schopenhauer – On Women
”…in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.”
—
”Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.”
—
…”for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.
It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.”
——-
”But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater.”
——-
Now, off to check “The Fraud of Feminism”
——-
PS. @ Dr. Paul – I will address your comments, as I think this could be an interesting discussion – but, if you will allow me, I would first like to see if I can find the references I am thinking of in the “Fraud of Feminism” – he goes through quite a section of this, if I recall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Paul, a quick note on your reference to the two sides of the coin – Schopenhauer also says that men and women are not “evenly divided,” which would support your case.
I’d pull up the quote, but now that link to his essay is not working – that link is often unreliable for me. It was about towards the bottom third of the essay where he discussed this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL! Off-topic – here is a footnote from Belfort Bax (Written in 1913)
1 I believe there are some Feminist fanatics who pretend to
maintain the superiority of the female mind, but I doubt
whether this thesis is taken seriously even by those who put
it forward. In any case there are limits to the patent absurdities
which it is worth while to refute by argument.
The only thing that has changed, apparently, is men’s gullibility!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Fraud of Feminism – by E. Belfort Bax
From pp30-31
Specialists are agreed that at all ages the
size of the brain of woman is less than that of
man. The difference in relative size is greater
in proportion according to the degree of civilisation.
This is noteworthy, as it would seem as though
the brain of man grew with the progress of
civilisation, whereas that of woman remains nearly
stationary. The average proportion as regards size
of skull between the woman and man of to-day
is as 85 to 100. The weight of brain in woman
varies from 38 1/2 oz. to 45 1/2 oz.; in man, from
42 oz. to 49 oz. This represents the absolute dif-
ference in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny,
the relative weight– i.e. the weight in proportion
to that of the whole body–is even more striking
in its indication of inferiority. The weight of the
brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the
weight of the body, while in man it is one-fortieth.
This difference accentuates itself with age. It is
only 7 per cent in favour of man between twenty and
thirty years; it is 11 per cent between thirty and
forty years. As regards the substance of the brain
itself and its convolutions, the enormous majority
of physiologists are practically unanimous in de-
claring that the female brain is simpler and
smoother, its convolutions fewer and more super-
ficial than those of the male brain, that the frontal
lobes, generally associated with the intellectual
faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes,
which are universally connected with the lower
psychological functions. The grey substance is
poorer and less abundant in woman than in man,
while the blood vessels of the occipital region are
correspondingly fuller than those supplying the
frontal lobes. In man the case is exactly the
reverse. It cannot be denied by any sane person
familiar with the barest elements of physiology
that the whole female organism is subservient
to the functions of child-bearing and lactation,
which explains the inferior development of those
organs and faculties which are not specially
connected with this supreme end of Woman.
———–
Sorry, I can’t find the specific referrence I was looking for, but Bax himself referred to Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character, so I assume that is where I got it from… but forgive me, I have already read Sex and Character twice, and don’t feel like speed skimming through another 100 pages to find the referrence, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Throughout history the realm of competition, related to gender, has always been men vs. men and women vs. women, fitting in well with natural selection. It worked pretty well for a long, long time. — Dr. Paul
True enough. I agree with the concept of “mate value/competition between same sexes” – but these are in regard to attracting the opposite sex.
The history of the “old gender roles,” as you refer to them, are actually fairly new – only a few thousand years old. The old-old system is what we are returning to now. Humans as animals, living like a communist herd of cows, with all the males trying to become the one dominant bull who gets to be the only one to live within the herd, and all the little heifers trying to be his favourite squeeze, while acknowledging he still screws them all.
As a matter of fact, I think a comparative analysis shows that he departure from the old gender roles is now taking us through the social equivalent of a psychotic episode. And it explains a lot of things, from feminism, to the MRM and MGTOW.
I don’t think it is a psychotic episode, except for maybe amongst men in that we became so dumb as to let this happen. Women are doing what is natural to them, and they have inferior intellect to us. It has become similar to as if adults were actually believing a ten year old’s opinions held the same value as their 30 year old parent’s.
All this because of an important caveat in the historical model. Acknowledging that men and women are different sides to the same point, it infers a fundamentally cooperative element, even a kind of symbiosis in our coexistence.
Men and women as animals are not co-operative between the sexes. Women are co-operative within the herd. To females. Not with males – except when socialized to be that way, and they are only socialized to be that way through the thoughts and inclinations of other women – ie. the herd. The herd does not rationalize. It emotes. The Bull does not lead the herd, the top matriarch of the herd leads, but they lead through Social and Relational Aggression (emotions). When buffalo hunters went after a herd, they sought out the matriarch, and shot her first, and all the other buffalo would mull around her wondering wtf, while they picked off the rest of them. Only the dummy wolves went after the stragglers.
Herd thinking is presented by Hegel here:
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
Women emote, while men rationalize. They are aggressive through emotions in the same way. Two men that are angry, punch eachother in the nose – it is over in a few minutes. Two women however, when they are angry with eachother, plot against eachother for months or even years, and sabotage eachother through harming self esteem, malicious gossip, or harming the other woman’s relationships with other people (ie. Third party manipulation).
But now it is women vs men, for I honestly believe the very first time in human history. We are, in effect, not just different sides of the same coin any more. We are battling each other to own the coin. And women are winning because of the nature of the old paradigm which evolved women’s skills to feed off male energy and taught men to allow and encourage it, even defining our ability to offer that energy up as being a part of the “fittest” in the survival game.
In nature – ie. humans as animals – women did not need men to survive, they needed the herd – true communism. That is Matriarchy: Herd Living, without reason. Completely pragmatic, living day to day by sheer instinct. Males were not included, except for the dominant Alpha bull, who was always being challenged by the up and comers – his life was glorious, but short. 99% of the rest were given the boot and had no place in the herd. You see this with “alpha” PUA’s as well. They think all women belong to them. It’s not just that they are already screwing 20 women at once, they are almost angry with another man for having a wife, and figure it is their responsibility to screw that guy’s wife too. That is how a bull in the herd treats interlopers.
Any continued female reliance on survival skills from the old paradigm in an age when it is not necessary results not in the yin and yang of strengths and weaknesses that unify for the overall good, but in a welfare program practiced on the SPECIES level. It is, in effect, interspecies parasitism.
Patriarchy is what created the Yin and the Yang. And, it seems to me that it was most successfully created through religion – and more specifically, convincing women to believe in it, so that they socially shamed other women who broke the beliefs of the herd, and kept them in line with the beliefs of the other heifers. And… socially shaming is emotional manipulation.
Now women are still doing the same thing, except the herd’s beliefs are feminism instead of patriarchal religion, and they shame and socially manipulate any woman who dares step out of line with the beliefs of the herd in the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Sonofabitchin’ tags!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@fedrz
/sandwich
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see lots of women who lash out and strike first – how many times do we chuckle about a woman kicking a man in the balls, slapping his face, throwing a vase? We just call it “spirit” to not hurt her little feelings. — Fedrz
__
Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence
Joan Arehart-Treichel
Previous Section Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners.
In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators.
These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health. …
Of those subjects, 11,370 reported having had heterosexual relationships and also provided answers to the violence-related questions. So Whitaker and his colleagues decided to use the responses from these 11,370 subjects for a study into how much violence is experienced in intimate heterosexual partner relationships, who the instigators are, and whether physical harm accrues from the violence. …
Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.
As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). “This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed. …
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This post made me think of the many times during my childhood where I wished that I could reach out to my brother because I saw him struggling with something causing him emotional pain. Of course, older brothers would rather pick on younger sisters or ditch them at the first moment possible than spend time talking about their feelings with the little sister; doesn’t mean that I still wasn’t wishing I could help.
Now that we’re both adults, he’s as closed off about emotions, worries, problems and so forth just like he used to be. At least I don’t have to worry about getting tormented for letting him know I’m there if he ever wants to talk about anything & capable of keeping my mouth shut about anything said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My understanding is that feelings are a result of the brain releasing chemicals into the body?
Just like adrenalin junkies looking for a good scary fix, these people are just looking to get an emotional FIX!!
I think these women should be thought of in the same way as smack addicts, crack heads and alcoholics are
Phil
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
The emotions thing is kind of difficult, I think. For example, I often put forth that women are not more emotional than men, but rather women have more kinds of emotions than men, but they are shallower. Men have fewer kinds of emotions, but they run deeper.
This comes from Schopenhauer as well, and he gives many examples of this kind of difference between males and females. I have written a summary of this here.
For example, Schopenhauer refers to women as sex. He maintains that women are fully sexually – always. But, when he talks about men, he puts forth that men are also sexual. In other words, women’s sexuality is always “on.” But, men’s sexuality is either on or off. Men are many things, and among these things is also sex/sexuality. And when men are sexual, it becomes more intense than a woman’s sexuality. A man is either in “sex mode” or he is not. When he is not, sex is not on his brain. But a woman? She is always partially sexual – but rarely as intensely as a man. It’s the same that a woman’s erogenous zones are more numerous than a man’s, and in fact, her entire body is an erogenous zone – but for a man, he has fewer, but far more intense erogenous zones.
And this goes for emotions as well. Women are always emotional – but their emotions are quite shallow, and they get batted about from one way to the next by them quite easily – basket cases, in other words. For a man, however, he has less kinds of emotions, but the ones he experiences are deeper/more piercing – and he can rationalize outside of his emotions more often. (Not always).
Look at the way that men and women argue on these boards.
The women don’t make a lick of sense, and it is hardly even worth trying to refute their nonsense. Men come at women with rational arguments and the women counter with emotional manipulation. Thus, all of their shaming tactics.
When we men watch two people debate an issue, we tally up the rational points each one makes, and whoever makes the strongest, most rational argument is “the winner.”
Not so for women. For them, the one who sticks her fingers in her ears and screeches “La-la-la-la-la-la” the longest, and who gets the other one to lose their cool and explode in anger – that makes the winner in a debate. Reason and rationality is unimportant – making the other person angry enough to lose their cool, that is important.
It’s the same thing as you read about all of these wingnut “workshops” that women are forever attending. If they must address an issue of some sort, what they do is get together in a group, and yack and yammer and try to achieve some sort of consensus on how they feel about the issue – they most often don’t solve the issue at all, but if they can come to some sort of consensus on their feelings towards that issue, well… they seem perfectly satisfied. Men are not this way – men want a solution to a problem, not that we all hug and cry, and agree that it sucks. Geez, look at women getting together for masturbation classes at university, whipping out mirrors and discussing how they feel about their vaginas together as a group. Good God, could you ever imagine men doing that?
Also, women are more communicative and this is why they speak 10 Trillion words in a day. It is not that they communicate better, but rather that they communicate (mostly nonsense) a whole lot more often. Men communicate less, but far more directly and thus, far more effectively. There are even studies that have illustrated that teenage girls get an endorphin high from talking nonsense on the phone.
And so it is, when I say that women are more in tune to emotions to men, this is what I mean. So much of women is about emotion… it is how they relate to others, not rationally, but emotionally. They are, therefore, more in tune to emotion. They attack emotionally, they communicate emotionally, they learn emotionally – right or wrong is decided by what the herd believes as a group, not by universal principles (as Hegel points out above).
When women attack us, they are attacking us emotionally – they are trying to cause us emotional hurt. Think of a child throwing a temper tantrum and running to her bedroom, and just before slamming the door, what does she yell at her parents? “I HATE YOU!” The child has no rational argument, but flings out something towards the parents to try and inflict emotional hurt at them. Same as women.
Well, that’s my take on emotions, anyways. Lol!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Poor old Schopenhauer.. unlucky in love ..(rejected by a 17 year old when he was 43…) and really just a half glass empty kind of guy..
However he did have this to say about women.
“I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man”
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Poor old Schopenhauer.. unlucky in love ..(rejected by a 17 year old when he was 43…) and really just a half glass empty kind of guy..
Not as unlucky as Weininger, whose realizations of men and women had him so depressed as a young man, that he rented an old room of Beethoven’s and shot himself, rather than live a life with his realizations.
In fact, often times, a man who studied the female sex was ostracized. Even have a look at Kinsey, whose text on male sexuality was a smash hit – the first best-seller of its genre, and women themselves giggled and tittered about all of the male sexual fantasies he put forth about homosexuality and masturbation etc. etc.
But his second book, on female sexuality, nearly destroyed him. People were outraged to hear of women having lesbian fantasies, or of them masturbating, or of their desires to have sex with those other than their husbands.
Kinsey put out a lot of garbage, but I maintain the most valuable experiment he gave us was this illustration of how society emotionally views male and female sexuality.
Women are society – they control society’s wants and desires. What women find acceptable, society finds acceptable. What women despise, society despises. This is because males are the sexual servants of the female, as is the case with most living organisms. A man who tries to expose women’s stained undergarments most often recieves the full brunt of society’s scorn, because women won’t tolerate their secrets being exposed.
Man has will; but woman has her way. — Oliver Wendell Holmes
When I have one foot in the grave, I will tell the whole truth about women. I shall tell it, jump into my coffin, pull the lid over me and say, ‘Do what you like now’. — Leo Tolstoy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is fucking brilliant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Women are society – they control society’s wants and desires. What women find acceptable, society finds acceptable. What women despise, society despises. This is because males are the sexual servants of the female, as is the case with most living organisms. A man who tries to expose women’s stained undergarments most often recieves the full brunt of society’s scorn, because women won’t tolerate their secrets being exposed. ”
Very true, Rob..
Or, to put it another way…. Women… really… are .. just.. bitches! (I include myself here.. I’m a once a month bitch
)
Love that Tolstoy quote, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Men experience emotions and go through things that bring them sadness, confusion, disappointment, hurt, and regret. It’s not that they should start sharing those things with everyone and anyone, and there have been a few who had and haven’t told anyone about their experiences that brought the kinds of emotions that I mentioned above, but they talked with me about them. To be honest, it was a privilege for me to have them share such deeply personal issues and feelings in talking with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“fedrz:
Geez, look at women getting together for masturbation classes at university, whipping out mirrors and discussing how they feel about their vaginas together as a group. Good God, could you ever imagine men doing that?”
Of course not, because men don’t care much about their vaginas, at least not any specific one when they have other vaginas as options. If one vagina is ‘broken’, or otherwise unaccessible for a length of time, there are others that are not similarly affected available, since they are a common commodity.
Not everyone is bought, sold, or trades themselves in lieu of cash or other goods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ ferdz
Great points. I am swamped at the moment but will definitely get back to them. Perhaps in a day or so.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Guys, wouldn’t it be better to post the really long stuff into the forum and provide a link? These are great quotes but they will be kind of lost in the comments sections….Just my 2c worth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fedrz January 31, 2010 at 06:28
This is because women are children, liars and deceivers and they do NOT want the men to find out. Really, when I found all this out I was really down for a while. But once you get over it and you deal with them like this then it gets much better. Just assume they are lying to you and trying to steal from you and you can handle them much better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Kathy January 31, 2010 at 06:09
“Poor old Schopenhauer.. unlucky in love ..(rejected by a 17 year old when he was 43…) and really just a half glass empty kind of guy..”
Ha, ha, ha….Men have to ask and they get rejected. We can take it because we are men and a bitch like Kathy tries to paint rejection by a woman as a slight on the man…LOL!! Just like women would paint all the rejections I got from my wife as a slight on me rather than realise it was merely her efforts are being cruel and controlling.
Women like Kathy are complete crap….and that’s most western women now…I now get rid of any woman who says not to me except the one who was so helpful to me when I was suicidal at the dis-owning of my children. ‘No’ means ‘No and don’t the door hit you on the arse on the way out’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Global…
You wouldn’t be Newly Single from MABTW, would you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ferdz
Great points. I am swamped at the moment but will definitely get back to them. Perhaps in a day or so.
Thanks — Dr. Paul
No problem, Paul. Lol! I know I left some glaring contradictions in between there, but, then again, this is a pretty complex thing actually, and plays into many different reproductive theories, and not all of them fit 100% perfectly. Perhaps by batting them around a bit, the pieces of the puzzle will better come into view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hope you feel better now that you have gotten that off your chest Globie.
You crack me up mate, I have to admit.
Here is a song especially for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr-pzSIHzwY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is because women are children, liars and deceivers and they do NOT want the men to find out.
They are much more effective at it than children though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religion tells us so much about everything we are. It seems to me that it serves a fundamental evolutionary role that confers enormous advantage on those societies that practice it. At its core, religion is the belief that there is an objective reality that exists beyond ourselves. Animals do not have this perspective – they have only their sense data and their emotional response to it. They can certainly infer truth about an external world, as anyone who has fed animals soon notices how quickly they learn when feeding time is – but one doesn’t need a conscious faith in objective reality to learn in this way. We were once like this ourselves, learning solely from our emotional experience as we ranged across the African plains.
As soon as we started believing in God/Nature/Reality, our minds must also have been able to visualize cause and effect independent of emotions and sense data. We became intellectual beings, able to hypothesize and experiment. This re-orientation of our thinking from seeing ourselves as the center of the universe, to believing that the Earth was the center and we were only players on its surface subject to universal laws was far more dramatic than Galileo’s later re-centering to the sun.
The thing is though, objective reality is still a belief, rather than a fact. The advantages in believing it are clear, but that doesn’t make it fact. Whether one believes in Objective Reality (God) or Relativism (The Herd) parallels the Realism/Anti-Realism argument in philosophy. When Marx said ‘I want to de-throne God’, what he meant was ‘I want belief in the Herd to replace belief in objective reality’.
This fits naturally with feminine thinking, for reasons Fedrz has already explained.
But it’s useful to know that so much of what we are seeing today that makes absolutely no sense to us is due to the fact that those who promote it are no longer centered on the idea of objective reality. They are referencing ‘states of consensus’ within the Herd, much of it perhaps outside of our current knowledge if we’re not keeping up. A consequence of this belief in relativism is the idea of ‘infinite plasticity of the human mind’, meaning that we can be taught to believe anything and molded into any shape to fit into new cultural structures. One need only look at how much the West’s core values have been radically altered in the past few decades to see how alluring this idea is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Muahahahaha. You simple, feeble, little males. Have you not realised we are slowly taking over the world from the passenger side? We have conquered social norms, and we are relentlessly conquering you! Do you not see that your reactions to women are that of which you despise? Emotional reactions, ones that most people would describe as overly irrational?! Your backs are rigid, but can be felled the instant you fall in love. Your affection and emotion deprivation will cause you time and time again to pursue intimacy in the arms of the very spawn you claim to despise. You will be defeated enmass, no matter how much of this word is spread, because you, my dear penis bearers, will bow down to the one emotion that will banish rationality to the gutters. You can’t win. We have more practice.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Well, it’s women who are complaining the loudest about being single, and taking sex trips to Africa and the like.
I’d say it’s women who are desperate for emotional intimacy and affection. MGTOW seem to be doing quite well. And then there’s Game to fill in the gaps. So I’d say the backlash is already becoming quite successful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting post.
In the church we are taught that to communicate with women we need to become women, that they are not just superior emotionally (which I guess could mean they simply emote more) but they communicate better too. Mens mode is explained as a way to juxtapose the superior women’s way. Cliche after cliche abound. “Dont fix things”…..just listen. Soooo, I come home and wife is crying that she is overwhelmed, a surge protector blew flames out of the wall in the babies room…..shall I
A. stroker her hair saying “its alright” (empathy)
B. run in the damn bedroom and check for fires! (fix)
See there IS a time for empathy, generally when its an unfixable intangible thing, and even there to encourage a mental workaround id indeed a fix, and what the hell is wrong with that?
Funny in church we are also taught that by doing this we will gain the physical passion of the women, because after all “they cant just DO it ya know”. We gotta “light the pilot light in the morning so the overn is warm that night”…because “they cant just DO it ya know”….er, well, until they have an affair and they get a phone call “meet me at the notell motel in 15 minutes baby”…..and then, GASP they “just DO it”.
We are told that we must do something that is totally unnatural for men, emote and empathize and toss logic under the bus…..to EARN something that both genders are totally equiped and built to do NATURALLY……sex.
The sex thing is the coercive part of allowing women to live in this constant tangle of unresolved emotions. The poster woman, we all know one, has an ever furrowed brow, a sincere and concerned sounding tonal quality to voice, and exudes a lack of joy. How can someone be happy go lucky while they are still mulling over the spoiled tuna friggin sandwich in the fridge from 1966?
The marriages that I see that are long term and still very solid and happy are not the ons where the men learned to be women, but the ones where the woman learned that needy is not pretty, and especially emotional neediness, which is as fleeting as the appetite of a child whose hand is poised above the Halloween candy bag.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gnillort is Trolling spelled backwards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I get the feeling this really isn’t about women in general, “Dr. Paul” but some ex that burned you pretty bad. I’m sorry you had a bad relationship but women everywhere are not the culprit; your crazy ex is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I heard he’s not even a real doctor.
Seriously though, this does describe women everywhere.
That’s not the same as saying that every single woman is like this. I am sure that you, for example, are an exception, as well as being unique and special in every way.
I can think of women I know who aren’t like Dr. Paul describes, and I can count them on one hand. I assume it’s the same for most men. So, we have a problem. There wouldn’t be an audience for this stuff if it wasn’t true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Honey, we have heard your argument before,repeatedly. Over and over.
It wasn’t true the first 1000 times we heard it, and it’s incorrect this time too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I’m a guy but I read this back to front
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL! Love the Dr. Evil tone. More please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Julia February 1, 2010 at 07:39
“I get the feeling this really isn’t about women in general, “Dr. Paul” but some ex that burned you pretty bad. I’m sorry you had a bad relationship but women everywhere are not the culprit; your crazy ex is.”
Ha, ha, ha…women are so full of shit. If I had a euro for every time I have been told this I’d be a millionaire now. But ask a woman to actually DO something? Nope. They won’t do shit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Julia
As I already said, your feelings are about as important dingleberries, but let’s “go with the denial” for a bit an humor you.
Let’s assume that you are right, and everything I say here is the result of some bad relationship, and some unresolved bitterness on my part. Let us assume, in fact, that my experience was so bad and so damaging that it has set me off on a 25 year binge of writing on men’s issues and about women; indeed that it led me recently to developing the Dr. Paul persona to continue my venting of all this rage.
Then, of course, we have to assume that the almost universal agreement I get from men regarding this material also indicates they too, are just bitter and dissatisfied men with an ax to grind.
Not only that, but that there is so many of us out here that expressions like MGTOW, PUA , Game and even MRA itself are becoming part of the common lexicon. Web sites are being launched, fueled by all these bitter memories of all these hurtful experiences.
So that leaves us with a crossroads to consider. Either there are exponentially increasing numbers of men being duped into sympathy and agreement with the pain of an outspoken few,
OR
There is just a whole lot of men out here that share the experience of the very kind of shallow bitch I write about.
(pause for effect)
So, to sum all this up you are mostly right. I do have experiences with women, most all of them, that mirror the child-woman princess idiots I write about, though there is not a single relationship in my life from the past that I ever give any thought to in the course of an average day, no matter how screwed up she was back when it happened.
So you see, Julie, at some point you have, or rather you should, entertain the idea that there is a lot of men out here that think that women are childish pains in the ass, and it has a lot to do with childish, pain in the ass women being everywhere you look.
And If I had a dollar for every self deluded fool that thought they had come up with something original by reducing all this collective experience to some poor schmucks bad luck with one or two women, then I would have hired someone else to tell you all this instead of doing it myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
What was that sound?
Oh yeah….
Someone being proverbially bitch slapped with logic.
Hmmm….
It seems I hear that quite often on sites like this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ ferdz
First, thanks for posting such detailed and intriguing ideas. I wish I could respond to all of them, but most of it would boil down to agreement anyway. As happens so many times, I think these points boil down to more or less the same thing, though viewed from different angles.
The one point I want to address, though, is the following:
I think this needs to be qualified, and with your reference to control of the herd in mind.
I am a big subscriber to the powers of groupthink. I was first introduced to the idea in the way I view it thorough Yalom’s Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, and later through Carl Jung’s explorations of the collective conscious and unconscious.
But at some fundamental level all this boils down to individual relationships. They are the conduit for what we collectively adopt. So when you say that patriarchy created the Yin and Yang via religion, I have to consider the possibility that this was only a formalizing of long standing unspoken rules in place before patriarchy existed, and that those rules came from the necessity of women to draw on individual men’s effort and risks for survival.
We don’t know a lot about neolithic society, at least not enough to draw social conclusions that are empirical, but we are pretty sure that humans traveled in fairly small bands and were constantly driven by deficiency needs. In such an environment of immediacy it just makes sense to me that men who were protecting their own genetic line were also protecting the individual women that were carrying it.
It is my guess, that this is the defining primary relationship for everything that followed. Men were forced to protect whoever was carrying their genes, and, as a guess, likely protected the next guys genes for the survival of the community. But just as we see now, the strictest allegiances are on the individual level. If I have to choose which child is going to survive, mine or yours, your child is fucked.
Also, since all needs were survival needs, NOTHING along the lines of saying “NO” was programmed into men. And women were programmed to get whatever was needed for survival by any means necessary.
This is what is so exciting to me about current, growing trends with men. They are learning how to say NO for the first time that I think we can actually document, and it is filtering into the collective mentality.
Of course, that could ultimately bode very poorly for the species, but I’d rather worry about that after women are forced to grow up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Men think women are the problem, women don’t agree, you know why? Because women can have successful close emotional relationships with each other.
Just because womens emotionality doesn’t combine well with men’s lack of, or apparent “mastery”, of emotions, doesn’t mean it is an inferior version. Men prefer men-like relationships, women prefer women-like relationships. Blaming an obvious lack of connection between the sexes solely on the women, is very short sighted of you profound thinkers here.
Food for thought. It has recently been brought to my attention that men may seek sex, not only for the sensation of an orgasm, but because the intimacy with a woman (generalising here) makes the orgasm and the whole experience more pleasurable. It is an accepted form of intimacy in a society which often starves men of affection. I would be very curious to see the behaviour of men, if their intimacy needs (of which their existence I’m sure they deny), were met in other ways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
””Gnillort February 2, 2010 at 01:12
Men think women are the problem,
”””””’
Naa dude it is the special privilages enforced by government that make woman a problem otherwise ya know they would just be woman just another person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(quote) “Because women can have successful close emotional relationships with each other” (unquote)
Gnillort, you are full of S***.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
further more Gnillort,
“It has recently been brought to my attention that men may seek sex, not only for the sensation of an orgasm, but because the intimacy with a woman (generalising here) makes the orgasm and the whole experience more pleasurable.”
Really now? Not all of us are sluts that hunt for prey, squirt and leave. Some of us actually have emotions and a penis (that does seem to have a mind of its own at times). Prostitutes, or a willing slut you may find in a bar, serve the purpose of ‘blowing of steam’, a partner serves multiple purposes which may include ‘blowing of steam’.
“I would be very curious to see the behaviour of men, if their intimacy needs (of which their existence I’m sure they deny), were met in other way”
You would see a normally functioning HOMOSAPIEN, that tries to make the best out of his time on earth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m pretty sure your conclusion jumping here Harmageddon, probably constitutes as an irrational emotional reaction. Methinks you’re being all crap and womanlike and should probably harden the fuck up, oh sorry “grow up”.
My exact point was that having sex with women is not just for an orgasmic release, but for a coupling of intimacy, and yes, perhaps emotion. My comment was to illicit conversation that perhaps men may need an emotional coupling with women because they receive little emotional comfort in the rest of their lives. But way to jump on the emotional bandwagon and leave your fellow rationals behind
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Dear Gnillort,
Your golden vocabulary is, between the lines, smothered in manure *sniff* *sniff*. Incoherent, without foundation and very, very….. feminine. If I did not know any better I would think, judging your petty pseudo-witty insults, you are a spike-haired Lesbian that is posing in front of the mirror flexing her biceps, while holding on to her over-sized strap-on dildo, trying to achieve a moment of masculinity.
The quantity/quality of intimacy or emotional coupling that males receive in their lives is equal to what females receive, yet the major difference is the level in which this occurs and the needed quantity/quality per individual.
Males handle/deal with emotions in a short time span, effective and generally master the art of putting subjects into perspective. Males re-shift their focus on other matters and get over it, moving on. Males among each other function better, more effective and thus can be more productive, that’s why God does not want us to waste time in dealing with emotions that go hand in hand with reproducing. An all male environment is emotionally far more stable than a female environment (think office). By design and default the female is a far more emotional being, this starts with obvious biological indicators, for example raging hormones during your ‘time of the month’.
Now, Gnillort, if you still wonder why it smells like manure…. get your head out of your ass and smell the fresh scent of REALITY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gnillort
That reminds me of something funny. Some years back I was talking about these issues with a female colleague, another counselor. “You know, Paul,” she said, “I think you have a problem trusting women.”
“Hell,” I said, “Why shouldn’t I? Women don’t trust women either.”
She sat there for a minute looking like a fish out of water, her mouth moving but nothing coming out.
Then she changed the subject.
The point is, of course, that what you are saying is female nonsense. You measure the success of intimacy by whether two people sit and cry with each other, or whether they pass hours with rambling diatribes about how the “feeyul” about everything.
And that may well be a gold standard for women. It isn’t and doesn’t need to be the same thing for men. Two men can have more intimacy on a road trip passing the time with more mile markers than words. Only the foolish would assume there is no connection in that. Or only a woman.
Men often share life building things or working together, and it doesn’t mean the only things they exchange is hammers and nails.
Our relationships as men, our
, often transcends mere words. We tend more toward handshakes than hugs, more toward passing a tackle box than a Kleenex. And still, at times, we do share tears and heartbreaks. We just don’t wallow in them. And in doing things this way, we find more solace in solutions than solipsism.
You problem, Gnillort, is simple. You don’t understand men. Or, as you feminist sisters of the second wave were so fond of saying, “You just don’t get it.”
And the things that have been recently brought to your attention about men are not correct any more than the rest of the nonsense you posted. Sex is one form of intimacy that men enjoy with women. They also enjoy the pleasure of a woman’s intimate company, at least then they aren’t being bitches on wheels, much like they do with other men.
But the problem is often that women, who seldom know anything about the intimacy of just “being together” are always fucking things up with their mouths. Half of a relationships making the other half the captive audience for whatever happens to be running through their minds for two hours at a stretch isn’t intimacy. Actually, that is one of the many things women do to undermine the intimacy they could have with a man.
If you can’t enjoy silence with another human being, then you can’t even begin to know what intimacy is.
And that is all just one more way that women, with the unfortunate help of a culture afraid to contradict them; a culture that in fact enables whatever bullshit of the hour they choose to embrace, end up deluding themselves about what is real and what is not.
It is women that have problems with intimacy, not men. In fact, it is women who don’t even know what intimacy is. And they are hard pressed to shut up long enough to start learning.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
‘Feelings’ for most women are way more about their feelings… not the ‘feelings’ of a man — or another woman, for that matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Paul,
I do not wish to be rude but your half-ass-elementary-school-level-psychology is even worse than Gnillort’s blabbering. Why don’t you GIVE UP and read a book, lets start simple with Venus/Mars, it is at your level.
Gnillort is obviously a female, so I understand her stance, since she is an emotional being. You on the other hand Paul, no Dr. as you are not worth the title, seem like a sexually frustrated individual that fails to understand basic human psychology and, methinks, your anger towards women stems from a physical disorder that can be referred to as having a ‘pinky’
Males and Females have different biological ‘maps’, as well physically as mentally, so the ONLY thing we can do is ADAPT to each-other and LEARN from each-other in order to LIVE with each-other, that means that you have to set aside your little ego and give females space to move, both forward and backward. As they please.
You, PAUL, feel comfortable here in cyberspace because you can make IQ-80-remarks without having to face anyone. Yes the bloggosphere is a safe haven for weak males like yourself that are SCARED of strong females. In real life, you would not survive a simple discussion wit a female.
Stop pointing your finger, and start looking in the mirror!!!
(I am however afraid you are unable, to weak, to do so)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Shaming tactics etc. ^
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Snark
Please refresh my memory if you can. I seem to remember somewhere there was a graphic that contained the list of shaming tactics. It included everything from can’t get laid to small penis to can’t handle a strong woman, etc., all the usual suspects that the above moron covered.
Wasn’t that posted to the form here? I want to contact whoever made it so we can put a slash after small penis and type in “pinky.”
It’s rather catchy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wish I had the link to the catalogue of anti-male shaming tactics, but I never bothered bookmarking it because someone has usually posted it by now.
Perhaps part of the problem is that women think simple discussions are something to be “survived.”
They all show their true colours, sooner or later …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Paul, it seems the graphic has been created for a reason. Obviously this moron has accused you (in a way) of what others already have told you. So, maybe just maybe… this moron is right, along with other morons? So maybe, just maybe, you are a M….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Luckily, I am Male snark… so yes, your true colors: weak and not all too smart either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Harmageddon
Your laughable round of rote retorts aside (triple alliteration on the house), you do present a clear picture of the driving force behind MGTOW.
The fact is, as a man, I don’t have to adapt to anyone else’s biological map, which with most women boils down to folding up my own map and putting it int the glove box to gather dust. And what I have learned from women is that my unwillingness to adapt is a great turn on for many of them.
Sure, it runs the lowest among them off up front. Oh, drat!! LOL! But the ones that remain are significantly LOWER MAINTENANCE and still know how to polish my pinky, in fact, they know how to polish it better than the self absorbed idiots that are run off by having sensible boundaries.
And they don’t talk as much.
And they don’t cost anything.
And since I am not going to marry or cohabit with any of them, what other sensible approach is there for me to take?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So Paul, you are gay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would it be http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/ ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The fact is, as a man” –
disputed- more, half a man.
“I don’t have to adapt to anyone else’s biological map”
Consideration is the word
“And what I have learned from women is that my unwillingness to adapt is a great turn on for many of them”
And later you state the truth, you FAIL therefore you choose:
“And since I am not going to marry or cohabit with any of them”
The only thing is, you have it upside down, it is more likely that
none of them wants to marry you 
See the light Paul.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shaming tactics = a cheap excuse to dismiss, or get out of, a discussion for the weaker among you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Harmageddon
Not that I ever tried to hold myself to popular approval (it is a very poor measure of a good message) I would point out that your dissent is clearly in the minority here.
Now, again, that, in and of itself, means little. But I do think you should consider that before spouting off bullshit about what “others” have already told me.
And if that doesn’t work for you?
Go piss up a rope, jerkoff!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The one point I want to address, though, is the following:
********
——Patriarchy is what created the Yin and the Yang. And, it seems to me that it was most successfully created through religion – and more specifically, convincing women to believe in it, so that they socially shamed other women who broke the beliefs of the herd, and kept them in line with the beliefs of the other heifers. And… socially shaming is emotional manipulation.—— Fedrz
*********
I think this needs to be qualified, and with your reference to control of the herd in mind. — Dr. Paul
Yeah, that was probably not very clear of me, and not wholly accurate, because the Yin and the Yang means more that just one thing. I like the way that Weininger refers to “The Male Principle” and “The Female Principle,” and then asserts that men and women are neither fully male nor fully female. The “Ideal Male” therefore, would be 100% Male Principle, but there is no such thing, as each individual has parts of the other principle within them – ie. a Man has both masculine and feminine features, but he is ruled by 80% Male Principle, while having 20% Female Principle – Women, of course, are the opposite. In fact, this correlates with the diagram of The Yin and The Yang, where each dominant side has a dot of the other colour embedded within.
But, also, the Yin and the Yang can refer to how society works – and this is what I mean by it being created Patriarchal Religion. Throughout history, we see that society is either being led by the male principle or the female principle – one leads into the other and then merges back into the former again, in an endless cycle.
For example – Take JD Unwin’s Sex and Culture, where he has studied some 80 various cultures, and illustrated that a culture begins by hard masculine principle, where monagamy is strictly enforced upon the females, who have little rights whatsoever… but as the culture/society develops, the male principle begins to evolve more and more into the feminine principle, and as it does so, women gain more and more rights until in the end, society is being led by the feminine principle… and then “boom!” the society/culture collapses, and it returns back to the male principle – One leads into the other, and then back to the former again, in an endless cycle of history.
And, that kind of concept of The Yin and The Yang, would need a patriarchal religion to begin in the first place. If we were living as “human animals” we would simply forever live as “a herd” (or a “family” of primates, as it were) – dominated by the female principle, as that is what occurs virtually everywhere else in nature – males are the sexual servants of the female.
We don’t know a lot about neolithic society, at least not enough to draw social conclusions that are empirical, but we are pretty sure that humans traveled in fairly small bands and were constantly driven by deficiency needs. In such an environment of immediacy it just makes sense to me that men who were protecting their own genetic line were also protecting the individual women that were carrying it.
It is my guess, that this is the defining primary relationship for everything that followed. Men were forced to protect whoever was carrying their genes, and, as a guess, likely protected the next guys genes for the survival of the community. But just as we see now, the strictest allegiances are on the individual level. If I have to choose which child is going to survive, mine or yours, your child is fucked.
Also, since all needs were survival needs, NOTHING along the lines of saying “NO” was programmed into men. And women were programmed to get whatever was needed for survival by any means necessary.
I do believe that there is much to agree with here – and this is where I get kind of contradictory with some previous things I have said (Ie. the herd), because I also believe that Rotating Polyandry is part of the “natural” human condition – where a female operates on a sexual mating cycle of four years, in order for her to latch onto a beta male provider (possibly cuckolded by the alpha), so that she may be individually protected and provided for during the most vulnerable time of her life – when she gets pregnant, gives birth and then nutures the child child to self-sufficiency (It can walk, talk, and feed itself), and then her emotions for the male disappear and she discards him, returning to living within the herd with her young offspring… and then repeating the cycle all over again. In this paradigm, it makes sense that the male she attaches to has deeper emotions to bond himself to her and the child, and that even though her emotions for him will wane, his will not – because there is no biological advantage to the species for that to occur.
Lol! Well, those are my thoughts anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Harmageddon
With thanks to Wulf for posting the link, I went in and retrieved the only response appropriate. I pasted it here for your convenience.
Now, rope is pretty cheap, and water is free, so…………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shame on you Paul. Shame Shame Shame.
“I would point out that your dissent is clearly in the minority here”
Yes, so? Turn it around, poorly educated, disgruntled, insecure and clearly female-dominated people like yourself are hard to come across, you really have to look in all nooks and cracks of cyberspace, today I stumbled onto you, 1 in a million chance.
“But I do think you should consider that before spouting off bullshit about what “others” have already told me”
You should not be thinking, you should be listening. Maybe you’ll learn. Plus, again, bull-shit is rewarded with bull-shit.
“Go piss up a rope, jerkoff!”
Thank you showing your true colors, thank you for stating the obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Speaking as someone with some broken-hand blues experience, punching a hole through the plasterboard is not necessarily indicative of letting emotions control one’s life as it may be an indication that one actually: a) has feelings and emotions; and b) controls said feelings and emotions in much the same way as a pressure valve controls pressure.
Which is to say, had I not been in control of my emotions I would have punched the object of my anger instead of the wall. Even in such a state of anger I was able to rationally calculate the costs/benefits of punching the wall v. the object of my anger and make, what I believe today, to be the more prudent choice. Hence, punching the wall was, in many ways, a rational method for controlling my emotions.
Reading C-girls comments and others in this thread drives home the point to me that the former Mrs. StephenC was not uniquely unempathetic among women. It’s commonly said that men bottle up their emotions, never revealing how they feel until they blow up in a burst of rage….this is commonly stated but it’s not at all how it went with me even though the former Mrs. StephenC would probably say this is how it went down. Instead, she routinely ignored more modestly presented feelings of frustration and disatisfaction and I was only able to break through her abject lack of empathy with violent displays.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harmageddon = Harriet Harman ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr Paul
“But the problem is often that women, who seldom know anything about the intimacy of just “being together” are always fucking things up with their mouths. Half of a relationships making the other half the captive audience for whatever happens to be running through their minds for two hours at a stretch isn’t intimacy. Actually, that is one of the many things women do to undermine the intimacy they could have with a man”
I completely understand that women talking can completely ruin the intimacy for you and other men. I’m not going to debate your subjective experience of intimacy. But what makes your way the right way? Have you ever thought your silence ruins the intimacy for these women? Have you not considered the possibility that there are forums dedicated to slagging off men for being so childish and not being able to grow the fuck up and share, like grown ups would in an adult relationship? Has it not even crossed your mind that a womans seemingly over emotionality is a response to your coldness, as her inane chatter is to fill your silence? I will repeat this because you seem to be having trouble understanding that different people want different things. Maybe there is a divide between men and women, but that’s when you try and find someone you can compromise with. It’s just narcissistic to say that the way you want it, is how it should be, because that just disregards everyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There must be a link to this site on a feminist board somewhere – they’re showing up like a plague of rodents. Being such intellectual hamsters they never tire of running their wheels so hard – has it not occurred to them that we’ve heard this drivel non-stop for the last 40 years? If we wanted to hear more of it we’d go to feministing.com. Now show a little courtesy and run along.
By the way, when I see men silent with their women it’s usually because the woman has proved herself treacherous with his confidence in their past. Silence is how you starve human predators – people of goodwill are not offended by it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harmageddon:
So Paul, you are gay?
David: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
I had a friend who used to tease other men that he had just met by eventually asking, “So, when did you first realise you were homosexual?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul has difficulties finding himself, it is obvious.
Maybe a feminist trapped in a male body.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well they may be hamsters, but not veryintellectual ones, as they’re already asking if people are gay…way too early for anyone with even a bit o’brains…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, just a wish to avoid extremely tiresome thread derailments centering on whether people are gay, bitter, can’t get laid, or live in mum’s basement. Pretty damned boring the thousandth time you hear it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Still female bashing, acting like little cyber-alpha-males?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crella,
If you hear this a thousand times, if the remarks from numerous individuals that oppose bloggers here are generally the same, then maybe, just maybe, these remarks hold some truth. A stereotype does not JUST create itself, it is an image created out of characteristics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, Harmageddon, you believe in stereotypes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David,
I do believe that stereotypes represent a part of the truth, as the generalization has to have ’cause’.
Therefore, if I make remarks based on what others say and get informed that what I have said has been said a thousand times, I may assume that I do not stand alone in my observations, hence share an opinion with others, and therefore have touched elements that hold the truth. What works against me is that I am among hostile female-fearing buggers here that suffer from tunnel-vision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, come off it, Harmageddon! I think you are a Pom, right? Stop being so goddam pompous and girly.
I thought you Pommies had a sense of humour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesus f’ing christ …..David…
Males here are SO ABSORBED WITH WOMEN, I have explained it one million times: I am Dutch/Male!!! Netherlands.
And yes, we have a sense of humor, by nature a sense of liberalism and we do enjoy females having the same rights as us and we applaud same salaries for females as males. But, THE BIG DIFFERENCE is, we KNOW that the majority of the females back off as soon as the work-load gets to high or stressful, as she is a natural caretaker and will have great concern for the kids. And when the kids are all grown, she can go back to work. Emancipation is a blessing for Males, the wife works and has a career, hence more time for us.
The only thing that is disturbing is what we call POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION, where foreigners and females are chosen above male nationals as the company has a quota for a percentage of each race/sex-group.
It gets very frustrating when my CV is golden, but because I have a penis I can not get the job……
True, but hey… that is the way things are now, so i have to deal with it. Bitching about it on a blog between extremists, is not going to help me one bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And yes, we have a sense of humor, by nature a sense of liberalism and we do enjoy females having the same rights as us and we applaud same salaries for females as males. But, THE BIG DIFFERENCE is, we KNOW that the majority of the females back off as soon as the work-load gets to high or stressful, as she is a natural caretaker and will have great concern for the kids. And when the kids are all grown, she can go back to work. Emancipation is a blessing for Males, the wife works and has a career, hence more time for us.
And your point is? The men here believe this as well. In fact, in the USA, the Equal Pay Act was put into force into 1963. So, equal pay for equal work has been around for almost 50 years… explain to me then why it is still brought forth as a form of discrimination today when any employer who didn’t adhere to such a law would get sued into oblivion? It’s because it is not what they are after. Obama recently signed in the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, and Shitlery Clinton herself campaigned on the $0.76 myth. The point being of these things is that want “Fair Pay” for those who have not gained as much experience as others, nor that they should have less pay if, say, they don’t work as many hours as others. It basically punishes the industrious. Ah yes, that glorious Socialism you Dutch have embraced, killing the industriousness that was once part of your heritage.
Also, many of us also realize that feminism has freed males far more than females. But now we want to make sure we are not made into a slave class.
The only thing that is disturbing is what we call POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION, where foreigners and females are chosen above male nationals as the company has a quota for a percentage of each race/sex-group.
It gets very frustrating when my CV is golden, but because I have a penis I can not get the job……
So? Many of us are pissed off about the same things, amongst others. What’s your point? We are only allowed to talk about things which concern you? That’s not very Socialist of you, now is it?
True, but hey… that is the way things are now, so i have to deal with it. Bitching about it on a blog between extremists, is not going to help me one bit.
And yet, here you are… even after I thought you had been banned for your ridiculous insults yesterday, you are back spouting off ridiculous nonsense on every thread.
Bent je gek, jongen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s what I think:
As long as flourishing rationality and reasoning are considered masculine and floods of emotionality as feminine traits, it is really quite useless for men to complain about how women are so impossible, horrible and off-rails. After all, no man wants a masculine woman. This is the double-standard in men I’ll probably never be able to get the grip of.
As long as men argument about being superior to women in some matter, men are utterly dependent on the existence of that matter – for the feeling of supremacy to continue.
There is nothing more emotional in this universe than a human being with a stubborn nature of being in love with his opinions. To me, it seemed that the room for discussion in the writing was practically none. How emotional is that?
I bet not even the most sound and solid argument would make him change his mind. If it did, the writer, and along with him all the men wouldn’t be supreme anymore.
They simply couldn’t take it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Rationality is not the opposite to floods of emotion. Rationality is the opposite of purely intuitive decision-making.
Floods of emotion are poor impulse control…it is perfectly possible to control floods of emotions while still primarily relying on intuition.
Don’t be so certain.
You’re giving up without even trying. It’s not like we issued an ultimatum like: “if you don’t get it, then I won’t explain it to you”. I’ll leave you to guess which gender more commonly issues that sort of ultimatum…
I cannot imagine that there are many men, anywhere in the world, who would not prefer a world where women are rational…after all, we’ll still be taller and better at opening jars.
Do you believe there should be any room for discussion of the question of whether or not 1+1=2? Do you think that not leaving room for disagreement in that discussion is “emotional”?
I don’t know what your native language is (it appears not to be English), so I don’t know what sort of connotations the word “emotional” has in that language, but you seem to have one very important idea backwards: logic does not leave room for disagreement, except on what starting points are true or false (and whether or not its principles are correctly applied). Emotion leaves lots of room for disagreement, since different people may feel differently about the same thing.
I’ll take that bet.
Go ahead.
Give it your best shot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What silly notions you have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you so much for your comment.
Before we continue, are you of the opinion that women are (as generally spoken as possible) the opposite to men?
Thank you for the links.
It is quite interesting, how the stereotypical man is someone searching for competition and ways to indicate his superiority over the others, but sadly, also in the context of his wife. In my experience, rare are the men, who wouldn’t be bothered by e.g. their wife having a bigger pay-check.
In this sense, this view of yours was a welcomed and refreshing exception.
Well, according to my previous efforts, that has been the case. Instead of getting answers, they stonewall on me.
Precisely!
But it is quite common at least around here, among finnish men.
You consider 1+1=2 as a relevant metaphor in the context of alive human beings, of men and women and their characteristics? Personally, I do acknowledge the existence of average qualities among the two sexes, but to consider them in such a rigid and undisclosed manner as maths, I couldn’t see as something even remotely appropriate or relevant. What particularly frustrates me, is how people are so inclined to think how they pretend to quasi-know some people on the basis of one or two characters – and what’s worse, they consider this as fully acceptable!
I am devastated.
You are correct, I am not someone with English as a native language, but I’m really, really fond of the language. Some day I truly hope I can speak and write like a native.
Secondly, to me that main writing seemed like a descriptive writing, an opinion. To talk about men and women in general and reach a level of logics in which there would be simply no room for disagreement, to me, is not possible. People, what they are and why and how they communicate with each other, is not maths. That approach is simply not applicable. Why? Because maths are not run by a mixture of emotions, memories, logic, needs, desires and reasoning, but people are.
Experience, with which I believe tha main writing was written, is always a mixture of both emotions and logic. No man can just turn the emotion-mode off.
What ever I may have had as an “counter-argument”, you already answered to them with this:
You having said that, any request for a disagreeing argument is ridiculous, an attempt to convince you otherwise even more so. I sincerely don’t want to see you change your mind about whether 1+1 is 2.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a “lovely” emotional outburst!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would not say that they are opposites, but they are different; since there are only two genders to compare, this makes them seem opposite in every category where they differ.
In my experience, women who aren’t bothered by this are even rarer, but few women are willing to admit it… many women would prefer to bottle it up until they want to use it to get their way in an argument, or else to justify to themselves that “[they] don’t need men” as part of their decision to dump one man after another.
I expect they have no sense of why you aren’t getting it, so they have no idea where to begin to try to explain it to you.
For example, imagine a space alien asked you why you find it to funny to have your feet poked (assuming, for the sake of this example, that you are ticklish there). When you first begin to try to explain, you discover that the alien has no sense of what being tickled is at all; or, even worse, they experience being tickled as something else entirely–a purely annoying sensation perhaps, or a sexual response.
Of course, the reality–that we are talking about men and women and not aliens–is much worse, since people are taught that everyone is basically similar. This makes it difficult for many people to even begin to ask the question of what could be different about another person’s experience that would make it difficult for them to understand such a basic idea; leading to the conclusion that the other person must just be intentionally obtuse, or else downright malicious.
I doubt it; a man saying, “Women are irrational.” or, “Men are more rational than women.” isn’t saying this because he wants it to be true. He’s saying it because he observes it to commonly be true.
The competition issue is entirely separate; men, in general, view competition as the means of self improvement. Women, on the other hand, often view competition as being destructive.
People are indeed much more complicated than arithmetic (and I say this as someone who has studied enough logic to know that proving arithmetic works is more complicated than most people think it is). The point is that logic admits no contradictory viewpoints–only emotion allows for the existence of such things.
It is inevitable that people will judge each other based on limited information; it fundamentally can’t be avoided. It is similarly inevitable that people will use whatever characteristics they prefer to do the judging, regardless of what characteristics they are supposed to use (they will always find some way to rationalize their decisions). The best you can hope for is for people to be open about how they judge–yet this sort of thing has been heavily suppressed.
You’re doing a decent job learning the language. The biggest giveaway is your grammar and word order, which is generally correct but unusual, leading me to the conclusion that your native language is not English.
For example, “I am not someone with English as a native language” is literally fine, and easy to understand, but not the way a native English speaker would phrase it. A more common approach for communicating the same general idea would be to say, “I am not a native speaker of ***name of language***.”
Your objection, essentially, is an incredibly common one for posts here; so common that it has its own abbreviation–NAWALT. Not All Women Are Like That.
The point is not to perfectly describe all people; indeed, if this actually described everyone in a way that was immutably accurate, there wouldn’t be much of a point in writing it. The point, instead, is that these problems are extremely common, and entirely fixable.
Emotions and logic aren’t opposites. You live with both of them all of the time. How much you rely on each of them in making your decisions is up to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, they are different. My point here, and the thing, that in my opinion needs to be scrutinized, is the way women and men are discussed. And my bet is that the result depends enormously on whether they are discussed as each other’s opposites or just two differing types of human beings. Usually those with the strongest opinions tend to discuss women as the opposite to men – which, actually, very often narrows down the room for discussion, as well.
However, it shouldn’t be missed, that we are talking about our companions and social connections. Disappointments and betrayals of trust easily leave a rather permanent trace, so a hard-headed, even an arrogant approach is actually just humane.
My original agenda was not to criticize or question the details of the main writing – a man is naturally entitled to his own opinions – but rather the tone or setting they were presented. If one builds ones opinions into the mathemathical setting of “these statements are as correct and truthful as 1+1=2″, the reader that may have a differing opinion, is automatically forced into a position, where he is sort of arguing about whether 1+1=2. That, in my opinion, is seldom a fruitful approach to have a discussion. (Unless the aim is at having a silent audience.)
I have to admit, that particular pattern of behaviour in some women strikes to me as very odd, as well. Such a view placing the man onto the same level with the woman’s financial possessions, is simply asinine. As if the latter could in any way be a proper surrogate for the former; as if the the woman’s need for a man was primarily an issue about having enough money.
Based on my previous discussions with men about women’s general characteristics, the picture their comments have drawn me, has been quite sinister, characterising women as e.g. cold-hearted, manipulative or emotional amateurs seeking drama. In your experience, how big a percentage of women would you consider as suitable companion for a long-term relationship? Secondly, if you were to list the most important of criteria concisely, what would they be?
Concerning that example of aliens and tickling feet, it is indeed important to check the semantics.
I wish I could be as sure about it as you.
To me, men do seem to possess some quite confusing double-standards. For exmple, traditionally, men are considered very visual creatures. However, at one point they may wish, that the woman put more efforts on her appearance, but on the next moment, the man is complaning about the big sums of money the woman spends on her appearance – even though the money came from her own pocket. Secondly, it seems that men, famous for their sex-drive, may paradoxically not want to get sex too easily but rather, want to preserve something of a challenge in it. Commonly men are said to like a bit slutty women, but also consider it boring, even extraordinary, if there is no resistance whatsoever to be won.
Oh, and on more thing: men tend to have a rather lousy memory; they don’t remember, what they’ve said. I must tell you, it gives an interesting “twist” on to the relationship and conversations. Sad but true. And I’m not talking about moments when they’re drunk.
Naturally. The point was whether the consumption of the method is at an appropriate level. The threshold to judge seems far too low, if you ask me.
Well said.
Thank you for your comments. The description “decent”, however, will not suffice. My aim is at excellent!
Well, this I’m glad to hear (read). I wish this sort of attitude was a lot more common among people participating into public conversations. It has gotten boring to repeatingly come up with how curious comments are translated as insulting critique.
However, for a certain reason, with all due respect to the author of the main writing and writers of following comments, currently, this topic is way too secondary for me to get really serious about – the reason being the influential books I’m reading presently. The “itch” they cause, is something totally else. Anyone interested in a realistic, yet quite fresh description of human nature at its worst, I sincerely recommend to get familiar with the writings of the deceased (murdered) journalist, Anna Politkovskaja.
Overall, I find it unbelievable. Thousands of years of evolution and history of the mankind, and still, something as simple as free word continues to be such an enormous challenge. Even today, we are helpless in so many ways.
Pardon me for this somewhat off-topic comment to finish my post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s a logical world, any day now.
By: Amfortas
A chap sees a lot of oversimplification on Men’s Activism sites regarding who are smarter, men or women, and the issue of the primacy of emotion or logic as the better way of conducting one’s self.
Usually it is along the lines of, “women can’t think like a man, they are too emotional, whereas men are logical”. Indeed I have even heard people say that women ‘should’ think logically like men do, but just can’t. Some chaps get quite emotional about it.
Whilst it may be a ‘truism’ that some women may have a tendency toward being somewhat more ‘emotional’ than men, as well as taking into consideration many extraneous issues that, to a man, have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and some men tend toward being more ‘logical’ and focused than women, the overlap in the usage of both of these ‘tools’ of humanity are such that not only are they rarely seen one without the other but in most instances a judgment cannot possibly be made without the contribution of both, and particularly emotion. Often logic can assist in reaching a more appropriate judgment.
During our evolution, emotion came first. Logic much later. Indeed, many men and women don’t have the slightest notion of what logic is, still, and emotions remain rulers of the roost. Many, me included, may see this as an informal proof that logic is a recent and higher order mental skill.
Emotion is a visceral response to an environmental stimulus, whether that is an external or an internal stimulus. It is autonomic. That is we have no control over it’s arising as it is a built-in response. Emotion arises as a first step, unconscious and unsought. Part of the follow-on response is awareness of its arising and an internal assessment of what our autonomic response is actually doing to us, physiologically. We ‘feel’ something.
We then, cognitively, give a name to that feeling – anger, disgust, fear, in the case of threats, and like-wise we give names to the positive feelings. So far, logic has nothing to do with it. We react.
“Huh!”, I can hear the Men’s Movement readers saying. “Taking the women’s side, eh. Running dog, feminist lackey!”
Bear with me a little. You may even find the roots of Feminism here.
We then think about what we would best do in the specific circumstance and start to make a reasoned assessment, gathering the facts surrounding the environmental initiator, which may be an internal ‘thought’, and assessing those facts against a logical template. This template is not simply built into humans but learned. Some learn better and more than others.
What appears ‘logical’ to one is far from what appears logical to another. Anyone who has actually studied logical truth tables quickly becomes aware of the difference between what logic is and what is personal preference or even bias!
In making any judgment we must as a matter of course give any outcome a value. This value is rarely a matter of logic or fact but of feeling – back to the emotion again. A sort of ‘how much do I like this’ or, ‘what’s in it for us’ as a sentient being. We take our knowledge and understanding of the facts of the issue (cognition) and combine these with how we feel about it (emotion) in making a judgment.
“See!” more will say, “he really has been taken in by the ‘women are superior’ line!
Bear with me a bit longer. It gets worse.
Sometimes the ‘facts’ are pretty well unnecessary at all. The emotion however is necessary. Without the necessity of the emotional response we have no drive toward cognitive assessment. The emotion can also be sufficient. Indeed, the subsequent cognitions might actually hamper action with disastrous result.
It has always been thus.
For example. Look back to our long past yesterdays. Back in the cave days.
A non-ancestor of ours was walking through a jungle one day and he did not see a sabre-toothed tyger. It was a well known threat in the area, having killed scores of cave-men. Due to his not picking up this environmental stimulus, he had no emotional response.
The tiger waylaid him and ate him.
As usual.
Another guy who was also not our ancestor saw the tyger and whist quite afraid called upon his courage and developing thinking skills and looked carefully for facts to assess. He gauged the size of the tiger, holding up his thumb and doing a rapid estimation. A real big bugger, this one. And he also noted that it was the more ferocious male of its species. He wondered whether the tyger was hungry.
He was pondering this when the tiger jumped upon him. And ate him.
A third guy saw the tyger and ran like the fury in the opposite direction, not thinking and caring not a whit about the tyger’s breakfast schedule or sex or size or higher math measurement. In fact he had a sudden and pressing urge to go to the toilet-cave.
He was our ancestor.
It took him a while, sitting on the toilet rock, mulling over just how he could increase his speed if ever caught short again, to invent the wheel. And he liked it.
“Ahha!”, I can hear the women amongst us cry out, getting het up, even as I defend emotion over logic. “That’s all very sexist”, some of them might say. “Look at you, talking about men all the time. Attributing invention just to men and excusing their toilet habits. What if had been women walking in the jungle? Huh. Go on ! How would she have dealt with it? Where’s the woman’s view ? Things would have been very different”.
OK. Let a woman’s voice be heard.
An non-ancestor of ours was walking through a jungle one day and she did not see a sabre-toothed tyger. It was a well known threat in the area, having killed scores of careless, thoughtless cave-men over the previous year or three, who had no one to blame but themselves, the useless dorks.
But, due to her not picking up an environmental stimulus, which that man could have pointed out to her if he had any consideration at all, even though she was a caring and observant girl who enjoyed and felt more at home in the natural world, the flowers, the trees, the heady scents hanging in the air, as opposed to man-hewn caves, ugh ! She was practicing focusing diligently on working through her emotions from three days ago.
The tyger waylaid her and ate her.
It made a real mess of her hair.
The Beast!
Her best girlfriend, since pebble school, who was also not our ancestor, saw the tiger and whilst quite afraid and almost in tears at the sight of the beast, – indeed her eyes did fill and the sight of her poor distressed state would have tugged at the heart-strings of even the most hard-hearted Family cave Judge – called upon her developing cognitive resources and her quite advanced education for the day – ever since all that brouhaha about more educational choices for cave-girls – and looked carefully for facts to assess.
She gauged the size of the tiger, holding up her thumb and her forefinger, moving them this way and that, as her favourite teacher had demonstrated to her after class one day in a close and private, one-to-one tuition period in a secluded corner of the school-cave where the Women’s Resources Centre was later to be inaugurated. She always felt safe there. Special.
Anyway. Using her special female awareness and intuition, of which cave-guys were notoriously deficient – she’d been told and there was no reason she could see to disbelieve it – she did some rapid calculations, the way the ‘women’s perspective’ math’s tutor had taught her, and noted immediately that it had a penis.
Clever girl.
It was not an erect penis, she observed to herself with some wistfulness, turning the words over in her mind and even letting her tongue linger, forming the words, silently, – ‘penis, penis’ – automatically developing her communication skills.
But she was afraid nonetheless of the likelihood of being sexually harassed, even abused by the tyger – she was after all a very pretty cave-girl and knew that others were jealous of her long eyelashes and firm womanly curves and her long shiny hair, and why should tygers be any different – as she knew it was the more ferocious male of its species.
She quite admired his rippling flanks actually.
‘Cute butt’ she thought, then cast it from her mind with a shake of her ringlets.
She wondered whether the tyger had had breakfast and whether it preferred whole-grains or proteins. A good start to the day stops skin problems. She was pondering this when the tyger jumped upon her.
And had his wicked way with her.
A third girl saw the tyger and ran like a banshee in the opposite direction, screaming at the top of her pretty lungs and trying hard to get the right tonal quality as befitted her fantasy of a scared cave-girl, and, accidentally scaring the tyger so much that it promptly evacuated itself and left the evidence behind, making a disgusting mess on the forest floor which, incidentally, was much later excavated –oddly, a few metres away – and they didn’t even have metres in those days – as a fossil, she caring not a whit about the tyger’s breakfast schedule or gender or state of arousal.
It did cross her mind as she ran that the tyger hadn’t flossed his teeth since chewing on the other two ‘victims’. But she definitely didn’t consider the higher math lessons from the school–cave, that she had ignored anyway because of that hunky guy from the cave down the hill.
Later, she told him all about her fright and he was very consoling. The less said about that the better, pervert !
She was our ancestor-mother.
After a good rogering session which left her quite out of breath and with a warm feeling ‘down there’ where she NEVER looked, honestly, she sent him off with a broom to clear up the tiger-mess and the body-remains, as it was men’s work.
Her new boyfriend took a few months to invent the wheel. And he liked it.
He never went to the toilet at all.
So, you see, logic and reason picked off a lot of potential back in those days. It was a bit of a liability. Emotion kept you alive!
“That’s it”, you ask? “Logic and reason are no good? How did they ever develop then?”
Well, guess what happened next. The old story I am sad to relate.
The x-girlfriend of the consoling lad was really peeved. Everyone was talking about the third girl for months, how lucky she was and how her woman’s skills had saved her, how her cries had not only alerted the tribe but initiated the whole idea of a choir-club, and commenting on what a lovely couple she and the lad were. She – the x – they hadn’t invented ‘e’ in those days – organised a plot to rubbish him.
She recalled the time when he used to whack her across the head and give her a lovely rogering in his cave. He’d promised to love her ‘til the next hunt and now just look. Whacking that squeaky-voiced bitch every night, instead of her. Brute!
She wasn’t going to take it lying down – not that she was getting the opportunity much any more. No, she was going to take a stand. She got a few girlfriends together and they painted signs on skins and along with lots of other women they marched on the Chief’s cave.
They wanted a thorough investigation into the deaths of the two girls, they said. Huh! TWO girls ! This year ! It was an epidemic of male tyger violence, they said.
The Chief and his brother were in charge of the cave-site, Patriarchy Hills. It was a new development that had set them back a shell or two, I can tell you, and they were hanging onto the cave-guys’ rent-slates. The x set up a ‘tryst’ with the Chief’s brother, who was the younger of the two and had the longer loin-skin. So he was now secretly having it off with the x. Just once a week in the traveler-cave on the next hill. He and the Chief caved in to the women’s demands and set up a Board of Enquiry, funded by extra rent shells. (They even invented a capital E just for the occasion).
The full circumstances were discussed, all the relevant issues raised and almost all the relevant evidence presented (they couldn’t find the tiger-turd), including:
• the poor quality, male-oriented education for girls:
• the propensity for sabre-toothed tygers to be ferocious;
• the EQUAL ferociousness of some of the cave- MEN who COULD have put a stop to cave-girl eating but DIDN’T !!”;
• the clear FACT that men have penises just like male tygers do; and
• in passing it was revealed that the third cave-girl’s new lad spent much of his day by himself chipping stones !
The little bastard!!
The women demanded that the lad be punished for not having speared the tyger and so saved the first two girls.
That spears had yet to be invented was glossed over and when it did get an airing near the end of the last day of the Enquiry, it was ‘suggested’ that his time “SHOULD have been better spent and he COULD have invented the spear instead”.
In his pathetic attempt at a defence and despite the women’s counsel’s strong objections, he produced a prototype wheel to show it was not just a ‘boy’s-toy’ as the women called it. He demanded an opportunity to show it’s usefulness. It was determined by the Chief’s brother – at the urging of his girlfriend that evening as she ‘lay’ with him – that the lad should go and kill the tyger with it.
Have you tried throwing a 150lb rock wheel at a pissed-off tyger? Go down to the zoo and give it a go, THEN come back here to whine that it’s difficult. The lad clearly “didn’t try hard enough.
He didn’t come back. Proof, if ever it was needed, that he was a ‘Dead-Beat’.
The outcome was a victory for the women and the Board of Enquiry was forced to issue a rock-note saying it was all the lad’s fault and that all men were useless ’cause they had penises too.
Without a father now for her unborn cave-child, the first single-mother-of-us-all came about. A Women’s Resources Centre and a new Single Mother’s Collection Officer position were set up with a new wheel tax to fund them. A Dead-Beat Dad task force was set up too, just for the chaps.
And logic? It took a long, long while, and an uncountable number of guys sitting in the toilet-cave for logic to be invented.
Thank God for men. They got to plumbing on, early on.
And by the Lord Harry, did we ever need that with all the shit we’ve had to put up with!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for a nice essay Amfortas.
We agree that logic is a fairly recent mental skill. I’d just like to add that it must have given logic a boost when men started to form bands. You can’t keep a group of men together by use of emotions. Larger groups of men go by agreements only and the way you interpret the agreements must be logical to all members not to split the group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is an equally common problem at the opposite end of the spectrum, full of people who insist that the two genders are essentially identical. This view is, ultimately, far more damaging, as that group furiously insists on restructuring society and spending huge quantities of resources in order to ensure that one gender has better outcomes than the other–in the name of “equalizing opportunity.” But I have strayed well beyond the original point.
There are two basic ways of looking at two different objects or classes of objects: the ways that they are similar, and the ways that they are different. If we focus on looking at similarities, we eventually reach the conclusion that the two classes are basically identical (apart from superficial differences). If we focus on looking at differences, we learn a lot more about the taxonomy and structure of the two groups, but we superficially reach the conclusion that the two groups are opposite.
The latter analysis is dramatically more insightful, so long as we guard against the conclusion that there is no commonality, simply because we are not focused on it.
Dismissing these attitudes as being the result of isolated disappointments and specific betrayals of trust ignores the underlying commonality of these experiences. If a large fraction of people are complaining of problems that you chalk up to disappointments and betrayals of trust, you might want to consider what some root causes of that might be:
-are people’s expectations inaccurate, thus leading to disappointment?
-are people trusting others to act against their self-interest, without them having any particular reason to do so?
-what has enabled people to act in the way that is disappointing?
-what incentives act on both people involved?
-who put those incentives into place?
If you ask yourself these questions seriously, you may find some answers that surprise you.
Your problem, in short, is that the author is writing to inform you of his observations. You don’t like what he has observed, so you want to argue that it isn’t true.
These sorts of behaviors and problems have been observed as common; this cannot be reversed–they cannot be un-observed. But future behaviors can be changed, future beliefs can be altered, in ways that the past cannot. This is the point of the piece; to try to inform people that these behaviors exist, are common, and can be avoided.
That, unfortunately, does not prevent it from being the prevailing sentiment. It is common for women to view men as walking dildos that come complete with a removable wallet–and if one or the other is in some way imperfect, the only utility the man has to her is to fulfill the other purpose while she looks for another model in order to trade up.
Other uses rumored to be sometimes present include a jar-opener, a vehicle repair attachment, and a kleenex dispenser for when she wants to vent her emotions–just as long as he doesn’t have any emotions himself.
It is difficult to quote a precise figure. More than 40% of marriages end in divorce within the first ten years (in the US), so the most optimistic estimate I could provide would be 2 out of 3 or so. This fraction creeps up to over half by the 25-year anniversary mark, so that might be a more accurate estimate (1 in 2).
Of course, this ignores all questions of compatibility, whether or not life is a living hell for the still-married, etc.
Speaking personally, in my young life (I’m 22), I have probably met thousands of women closely enough to have any sense of who they are. Of them, there have, so far, been 8 who I would consider as might possibly have been worth a relationship. Of those 8, I have had serious relationships with 2, and less-than-serious relationships with 3. On that basis, one might suggest that a quarter of a percent or so might meet my compatibility criteria for likely success in a long term relationship. That might be an overestimate, however, given that the “people that I have met” is already a pretty self-selected group for the sorts of things I’m looking for.
Regardless, given the huge financial liabilities and significant lack of benefits currently present in marriage, I would not consider civil marriage with any of them. I would consider religious marriage, but am wary of legal changes trying to remove that distinction.
Such lists, as commonly generated by women, and somewhat less commonly generated by men, should be taken as largely useless. If you want to know what does and doesn’t work in attracting the opposite sex to a long term relationship, find some that appear to have functioning relationships (rare though they are) and look at what has worked for them…the specifics won’t necessarily work for you, but you’ll get a more accurate picture of what people actually want than if you ask them directly.
That said, most men consider an attractive appearance a necessary condition on even considering a relationship. This may seem entirely shallow of them, but it is, in fact, only mostly shallow; a successful relationship will include an active sexual component, and physical attractiveness is necessary to maintaining that. Where many men go wrong, however, is in their willingness to compromise on almost everything else for that one trait.
Strong predictors of relationship success include religion (the pious are less likely to divorce their partners, possibly out of a sense of duty instilled by religion), education (couples with both partners well educated are less likely to divorce), and earning structure (couples with both partners gainfully employed, but him earning more than her, have a lower divorce rate than other groups). It is difficult to separate cause from effect here, but it is clear that situations where one partner believes (often correctly) that they have a strong incentive to divorce are a recipe for disaster (one that has become unfortunately common).
With all that in mind, I personally have the following standards: (1) She needs to be able to engage me in interesting technical conversations. A relationship without this would drive me insane. This sets a functional minimum on her intelligence and education. (2) She either needs to be of my religion and meet my standards of piety, or else she is going to have to convince me to change religions. (3) She needs to be within, or close to, basic standards for human mental and physical health.
Anything else is negotiable or can be fixed.
These criteria are both personally important to me, and lay the groundwork for what is necessary for long term relationship success under ideal conditions. Social forces, however, have made conditions significantly less than ideal; presumptions of female custody in the event of divorce, selective application of domestic abuse laws, the nature and structure of alimony and child support awards, etc. are all forces working against the success of long term relationships. Arrayed against this a man only has his particular selection method and his ability to use psychology to try to hold his relationship together (and before you object that it isn’t only men who are trying to hold their relationships together, note that every single one of these social forces is acting as the incentive for the woman to leave the man, not the other way around).
Women spend large sums of money on things that have small effects on their appearance (shoes and cosmetics), often while ignoring things that have large effects on their appearance (i.e., their weight). Have you ever heard a man complaining about a woman’s gym membership when it was evident that she was using it (in an effective way)? Most women could cut 20% of the things they spend on to control their appearance, and reduce their costs from such things by 80%, without having a significant effect on the results.
Tangential to this issue is the fact that the things that many women do in order to appear sexy often detract from their appearance; this often has to do with the difference between what makes a person feel attractive, vs. what actually is attractive.
Most men will gladly accept easy sex. And then dump you afterwards.
The reasoning, largely subconscious, goes something like this: if it’s easy for me to get you to have sex, it will be easy for other guys to get you to have sex. Thus, a slut is more likely to cheat on me. Sex is fine, but a lasting relationship is a trap.
This is partially true and partially false. It is false in the sense that people often do not remember what they say, but rather what they intended to say–which can often create a sizable amount of miscommunication. In addition, we often correct our memories of past beliefs to be more in line with our current beliefs, exasperating this sort of problem.
It is, however, true that women have better memory than men on average. This is the counterpoint to the statistically superior reasoning capabilities men have.
Everyone judges everyone else constantly, whether they are trying to or not. All a person can control is how they act on those judgments.
That said, people often act on less data than might be desired…but if we always held out for enough data to be certain, we’d never act on any judgments of the world at all.
In English, this is typically termed free speech, although technically, when written, it should be called freedom of the press.
The easiest way to control what people think is to control what people say; one way to control what people say is to censor and kill anyone who says anything different. These tendencies will continue to exist as long as their are people who are bound more by their lust for power than their sense of morality. There will always remain the human trap of rationalizing means by the ends they seek, rather than the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Arbitrary:
Very good points. I would like to add that censoring historically has been, and up to today is, a common way to control what people think, further enforced by the meta notion that ‘reality’ can only be represented by words. I have the idea that words are the result of our ‘inner communication’, and influenced in an ongoing way by the words, the results of the ‘inner communication’ of others. Which brings me to the following. I completely agree that morality is important but I’m afraid that ‘morality’ in itself might not be the definite answer to what might be perceived as a-moral, for instance lust for power. I view morality as an abstract denominator for the set of rules one has describing what is to be perceived as good and what has to be perceived as bad. Morality as the result of the way one looks as the world and the way the problems of one’s existence can be framed in a consistent view of this world. I view the moral part as a learned way to interpret ongoing emotions, put them into this perspective, and thereby creating the emotional necessary part of our decision making capacity when we have to act on a ‘what is good, what is bad’ basis. Somewhat like ‘the feeling of what is good or what is bad’. Moralities, as part of world views – for instance parts of a world view that might be abstracted from religious views – change. More often than not people act on the basis that there exists only one morality, their own morality. And when this morality is used to divide people in the good and the bad guys, it might become just another way to control what other people think. Especially religions have historically shown a strong tendency to act in this way, including the notion that the wording of a religion is the result of some Deity. Today, one of the transformations of this Deity, albeit in most cases as a way to describe evil, is ‘Patriarchy’, and the other Deity, to describe the good, is ‘Feminine’. And, not surprisingly, with it comes the morality of the feminists, with all it’s implied notions of what is good and what is bad in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gents,
logic is a system of axioms….pure and simple. Here they are presented in a number of different ways.
http://home.utah.edu/~nahaj/logic/structures/axioms/index.html
What ‘seems logical’ is complete crap. Either something IS logical by this set of axioms or it is not. These axioms are actually the basis of all mathematics and everything provable in mathetematics is provable, all-be-it with great difficulty, with logic like this.
I would also point out that I have never met a woman who knows how to use logic axioms very well at all. Some have tried but apart from a few mediocre women none have done very well at all.
This link is what ‘logic’ is all about. Wimmins feelings? Let them tell them to some other wimmin…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does that mean that women are winning because their system has only one axiom?
woman ~ happy => man is always responsible
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops!
There is a second one.
it is convenient => it is true
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting additions to this thread.
To me it boils down to diminishing returns. It’s a common equation to consider that mental health is at least somewhat contingent on placing intellect over emotions. Emotions are pretty valuable in a survival situation, for very short periods of time. Whatever actions people take, no matter how sparsely considered, are a result of intellect, NOT emotions. Your fear may tell you the bus is barreling toward you, but only your mind will get your legs to move and get you out of the way.
And trying to solve interpersonal problems with how you feel will get you just as run over as freezing up in front of the oncoming bus.
This is not to infer superiority of men over women, but it does explain quite well the human sociobiology at the foundation of women’s dependency on men to survive. Clearly we wouldn’t have survived as a species if men hadn’t, for tens of thousands of years, literally done the thinking and acting for both sexes.
Grandiose constructions of explanatory archetypes aside, we live in an age that has fostered toxic emotionalism in women and equally unhealthy enabling of it men stuck in outmoded and archaic mindsets. Such thinking may serve their classically fragile egos, and fracturing that may even drive them to despair. But it is simple culling of the gene pool.
We don’t live in an age where either masculinity or femininity should be the recipients of nostalgic adulation. We need sharper wits and more grounded understanding of the current state of affairs. Of course, I say “we” most figuratively. It’s a free world, and anyone who wants to hold the ghost of long dead ideas in reverence, is free to do so. But my experience is that this leads to consequences of its own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
test
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Oh, and on more thing: men tend to have a rather lousy memory; they don’t remember, what they’ve said. I must tell you, it gives an interesting “twist” on to the relationship and conversations. Sad but true. And I’m not talking about moments when they’re drunk.
This is partially true and partially false. It is false in the sense that people often do not remember what they say, but rather what they intended to say–which can often create a sizable amount of miscommunication. In addition, we often correct our memories of past beliefs to be more in line with our current beliefs, exasperating this sort of problem.”
I rarely lie in the context of my day to day life. It was a bit of a problem for me when I was younger. Now, I selectively omit lots of stuff out of nessecity. During the brief time I was a teacher, I lied all the time. I had to in order to maintain my moral credibility within the system. What was I going to tell my students, that I thought the whole education system was crap but they better take it seriously, not to do drugs although I take them all the time, not to get into fights although I resorted to violence all the time in my youth. I learned I could lie easy and often enough, but probably not very well. The kids pretty much saw right through me. For example, one guy brought in a guitar one day, so I let him play a bit for the class, and he was making up a song as he went and one lines was something like, “I don’t belieeeve Mr. xxxxx doesn’t do druuu-uugs.” I’m sure they knew I had been in plenty of fights also when a couple of the tough kids got “out of hand” and I did my whole serial-killer-smile stare down, “Do me a favor and make a move.” bit to reestablish control. I remeber one kid, towards the end, was like “Mr. xxxxx, you lie to us, don’t you?” I looked at him, and said “I lie to ya’ll all the time.” From my very first week, they loved me, towards the end, they were eating out of my hand. I’m getting off topic as usual. My point is I don’t lie much because I’m not good at it. In that sense, people rarely claim I’ve contradicted myself, wife included, although it happens. No one is perfect. So if so many people intuitively know I’m honest, or can tell when I do lie, then most people know I’m an honest person. I’m sure many of my friends would concur. My point. That honesty got me no where with women. Not the honesty itself, and not the reputation for being honest. If you can’t lie, women see it as a defect. Now having said that, there are times, about big things, that I lie, and when I do, out of some over riding sense of self preservation, I manage to pull it off. I don’t get nervous. I don’t hesitate. My mind says, “This is it. You have no choice.” and I lie, and afterwards a inner sense of relief that I actually did it comes over me. This tells me that lieing is not natural for me, and that to lie for the greater good or self preservation is a significant event for me to override my innate sense of honesty. For all the downsides that not lieing has, my honesty however can now be uses as a weapon, because people who know me, believe me. Now that I think about it, if you remember the story, maybe that was why I was able to make girls cry so easily in highschool when I comely and matter of factly pointed out all their flaws and shortcomings as a wierd Aspergery psychological experiment (I only did it a handful of times, I wasn’t out of sadism, mainly curiousity and power.) The human ability to lie, to others and even more importantly to oneself is a very important tool. Maybe my mild-depression was caused at times by my inability to lie to myself. I don’t know. The older I get, the better at lieing I become however. It was a skill I had to develop, although I’m still too honest. I’m probably the only person I know who points out his actual flaws and weaknesses in job interviews. Interestingly enough, I find work very, very easily. People like overly honest, non-threatening geeks to work for them. Women do not.
Let me end this rant, with a bit of honesty:
Most women, especially the younger and more beautiful ones, think and behave like spoiled children because they are allowed, if not outright encouraged to. Feminism is evil. Political correctness is evil. The uber-rich and powerful, the bankers and politicians, the corporate overlords and captains of industry, are human, and all humans are greedy, selfish sinners, and their power needs to be curtailed more than it already is.
@Arbitrary-
You’re only 22? I’m more impressed than ever. What do you do? What is your life goals? Do you ever think about my entropy vs evolution meme, and that evolution drives everything towards coalescing into the form of God. If anyone was to steal my idea, and more scientifically present it, I would like it to be you. Can we be friends? Maybe like email pen pals. Not to be cocky, but people really like being my friend. One of my old Alpha male, druggy partying, stripper/head cheerleader fucking friends called me up a couple days ago saying he wants me back in his life, that he wants me to be a part of his new baby’s life, that I was a true friend. (He said he felt kinda gay for saying so, so I know he was being honest, allthough I trust and rely on him about as much far as I can throw him.) Now why would someone like that want to hang out with a comic-book collecting, video game playing, failed artist, broke geek, unless I’m an Alpha friend. The offers on the table.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Advance warning to anyone who wants to save themselves some time: this post has no substantive content.
My background is primarily in mathematics; I live and work near DC, and my employer gets really testy when people talk about exactly what we do here, and who works here. However, I don’t plan on working here forever, and I’m not really sure about where I want to go in life at this point.
This question always seemed funny to me; being friends is not something you ask, it’s something you do. The answer, in general, is yes by default, dependent upon behavior.
Pen pals, on the other hand, is trickier, since I’m not a very attentive correspondent. Someone will send me a message; I’ll generally think, “Well, that was thoughtful, I should spend a while composing a response.” A couple days pass, and then I’ve forgotten entirely that I was going to write back. Some indeterminate amount of time later (often on the order of months), someone else sends me something that reminds me of the first letter, and I send a reply to the first one if it still seems expedient (since I know if I don’t I’m probably never going to remember again). But that usually means putting off writing a reply to the second message, which I then get reminded of again in a couple of months, and … you get the picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why did I wait years upon years to start researching this concept? How can I undo 27 years of emotional cripple? Are there any other good articles or books about this topic? Why can common sense elude me so easily for almost 3 decades? No wonder my husband is sick of being around me and hearing me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }