Left wing activist hot heterosexual chick with no apparent boyfriend works as refugee aid activist. Predictably gets robbed and gang raped. Predictably continues to work as refugee aid activist and blames German racism.
Why, you may ask, does a hot chick have no boyfriend? Well in my experience it is extremely common for way hot chicks to have no boyfriend because they are on booty calls to guys who are, by the rather strange and hard to understand female measurement of status, higher status than they are.
This post is intended to hint she was quite likely cruising for a gang bang, and quite likely still cruising for another. Of course I have absolutely no direct evidence that she was cruising for a gang bang. For all I know she might have been a pure minded virgin with unfortunate naive misconceptions about refugee behavior.
But I do have direct evidence from personal experience that cruising for a gang bang from males that are low status in the ostensible male hierarchy is alarmingly common behavior among hot chicks, and of course all us with any significant contact with women know from direct personal experience that most women are unimpressed by the ostensible male hierarchy.
Indeed one of the primary functions of patriarchy is to overrule female choice so that pussy goes to males who are high status in the ostensible male hierarchy, rather than high status in the disturbing and hard to fathom way that women perceive status – so that pussy goes to high IQ prosocial, well behaved, brave and hard working males, rather than to the Jack Dawson character in the film “Titanic” – an unsuccessful musician with no apparent means of support, whose numerous real life equivalents live mostly by sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.
Does that woman really meet your standard of “hot”, or are you just stretching to make a point?
From her photos it’s obvious she’s a cow.
http://i.imgur.com/JpHq2Jf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2oFgjYg.jpg
She’d be nice looking if she weren’t a cow. Hardly a 10, but nice looking.
She’s barely a 6 on a good day, clearly.
I would be happy to tap that, and I have tapped lots of girls worse than that. You may say “oh she is a six on a good day”, but you would not kick her out of your bed without first screwing at least once, and probably twice.
She’s a four, maybe even a three. She’s close to unfuckable, but not quite there. My standards are not high.
If you count her a four, I bet it has been a while since you ejected a four from your bed.
She’s a zero to me. I can’t get a boner for fat girls at all. I have an average-but-slim girlfriend and have never been too thirsty for poon, so maybe I just have low T
Jim, I like your analysis on a lot of things, but you are wrong here. If you think this is the type of chick that “alphas” have on call, then you either live in an area with very ugly women or your view of the SMP is badly compromised.
It’s Saturday night. Let’s go hoggin’.
In truth, I will fuck anything at least once if she is born a woman, under forty, old enough to have tits, and does not ask for payment.
But this chick is not bad at all. I think all the whining that she is a four is sour grapes that she is gangbanging ugly short total losers, while she would not give guys like you the time of day.
Around age 30, I showed an over-50 coworker pictures of a girl I’d met while traveling, who I didn’t think was very pretty, but he thought she was. Do male standards decline with age, or is this a function of birth year? I’m about 45 now and haven’t noticed any change.
At a recent school event in my rural district, I noticed that NONE of the mothers were even a five, and few of their daughters showed much promise either. Do you think cities shred beauty the same way they shred IQ?
I think it says more about you than it does any of us, and I mean that in the kindest way possible.
Regardless of the precise ranking, I would be very surprised if this girl has dozens of German alphas on call.
I am sure, however, that dozens of German alphas have her on call. I find all these people who claim that they would not so much as give her a booty call hard to believe. Yes, they would not give her a booty call, because they never dare give anyone a booty call.
What is potentially more interesting than her attractiveness is that she does not look very German. Dark hair, dark eyes, kinda gypsy-ish face. I wouldn’t be surprised if the camp inhabitants were more phenotypically similar to her than the average German. The thin, blonde haired German girl with flat-profiled narrow face cares very much about the male status hierarchy in my experience. It is not the only thing she cares about but it is one thing.
She is a Jew. Hence the phenotypic similarity.
And I find your account of German girls hard to believe. Not that I have much experience of German girls, but I have lots of experience with males attributing to the females around them far more chastity and virtue than I observe.
When a girl is in her hometown, near her family and her female friends, she seems to show some attention to the ostensible male status hierarchy. And then she goes on an overseas trip and jumps naked into the sewer with three random guys each more broke than herself. And lawerettes tend to fuck their low status clients. Spring break in Cancun! Then after fucking what seems like the entire criminal and no-visible-means-of-support population of some foreign country, she goes home and dates the guy with no chin who is training to become a doctor.
I might give her a booty girl, but not more than that. She is considerably less attractive than my current regular girl.
But I am not an alpha. Presumably alphas have way more options than me.
Re German girls: on average I find them slightly prettier and feel like they would make dependable wives. They have slightly higher standards. However like all women they follow the tingle.
Most importantly German girls want to leave town when they are 18 to study and consequently sluttifiy.
German women have the same hindbrain requirements and desires as other women. They additionally look down on men who are not conventionally successful, to a greater extent than any other nationality of women I have encountered. Women rarely sleep with men they look down on. It is not that they have fewer or different requirements to other women, they have additional requirements.
This might be way Germany’s TFR is so low compared to similar countries like France and the UK. Most German men just aren’t good enough for most German women, and those few who are good enough have too many options to want to settle.
Jim, you have a warped sense of what is “hot”.
“I am sure, however, that dozens of German alphas have her on call.”
No, you are hazarding a wild guess.
“But I do have direct evidence from personal experience that cruising for a gang bang from males that are low status in the ostensible male hierarchy is alarmingly common behavior among hot chicks…”
Personal experience is rife with confirmation bias and solipsism, Jim.
What you have is your typical bullshit.
“Of course I have absolutely no direct evidence that she was cruising for a gang bang.”
Exactly, no evidence, just imaginative speculation.
Agreed. Wouldn’t tap that.
Exactly. There’s a passage from the Bhagavad Gita that ends with, “If you miss discrimination, you miss life’s only purpose.” Apparently Jim has lost ANY sense of discrimination when it comes to women. And notice he goes
to the “You mustn’t have had pussy in a while” defense.
Go ahead, bruh. I can look at myself in the mirror the next morning.
There is some subjectivity when it comes to finding a woman attractive. Maybe Jim likes chubbier chicks? Its less about having lower standards than it is about having different standards than ours
People generally agree on what’s attractive not the precise number of how attractive however.
On the internet all men only bang 8s and higher. In real life this is the average look of most girlfriends of men I know. Would not call her a cow, would not call her hot, would call her a little above average.
Actually I would not call her above average, I would call her average. A sixlike Dan says. If I were single and horny and she was the best option for the night, would probably bang.
**On the internet all men only bang 8s and higher.**
&c
Yes, this needed to be said. I long ago ceased to take seriously these sorts of comments on the PUA sites.
I have no dog in the hunt, personally, having only ever slept with one woman, and having a mind to keep it that way, but here’s the reality: this woman is average to slightly-below-average, yet by no means excessively unappealing in a pinch.
I really believe, after years of reading these sorts of comments, that many of the men on PUA sites boasting about their ‘standards’ are basing their standards on how they think they are going to be judged, rather than on the actual “if it goes up it goes in” test. Ironically, ergo, I believe many of these men are as in thrall to social pressure asthe women and SJWs we fight.
My standards are, if it goes up, it goes in, and it goes up for pretty much everything fertile age or near fertile age.
Saw the photo. I’d say she is not hot at all.
I would have been interested in her about two years ago, now I just see her as not White enough and don’t care.
She’s a Turk, so…
“Why are you trying to be anything? …Just be yourself.”
If King, why do anything? If you are the high status male, why bend down to pick wheat, vegetables, berries? Why bend down and tie your shoes in the morning, let alone go anywhere or do anything?
If King, you have field peons to do those things for you… not just to farm, but to make your bed, pick your wardrobe, build your castle, etc..
Women want the King. But, functionally, the king is often a loser, decadent. The King, historically, was a warrior who was able to retire from hunting without serious injury; meaning, an older man who sat around camp while bearded 19 yo cavemen broke their arms and ankles hunting elk.
The King: may be a loser now, but has proved himself a winner from ages 16 to 30. Undeniably, assuming the his mates died, is the best, genetically, that the tribe has. Any perspicacious woman would want that man.
Thus, for countless thousands of years, women were attracted to functional losers.
Bend down to make money, to build muscle, to accomplish anything at all, and you are not King. You have yet to prove yourself. So be a loser.
As I posted elsewhere recently: In my years with women, and yes, for the last half of that time I was a player, you can get a lot out of a woman, especially in a hot bubble bath with drinks. Several of them told me of fantasizing about being raped, one was a Navy officer and the other was 17 years married. My big concern, from learning what goes on in women’s minds, is the right to vote………
1. That is a Turkess. If you couldn’t tell by the name and the fact she knew her attackers were speaking Arabic, Kurdish, and Farsi (very fucking Turkish if she knew all three), the article itself said so.
2. Not hot. Fat. And a Turk.
3. I would not be surprised of a fat Turkess was cruising for a dicking from her male co-ethnics who had recently arrived from the homeland.
4. I am more curious whether she was actually gang raped at all, or just made up the whole thing for attention to prove she was desirable — again, she being a fat Turkess.
She looks too white to be a Turk, though she does have a Semitic look about her, she can almost pass for native German, and the surname Gören has a certain…reverberation…to it.
Who really knows what she is or where she comes from. She probably lives in Berlin today, then in Brussels tomorrow, Paris the day after that, and then in Prague or Vienna or London and feels at home everywhere.
I bet she conducts her business everywhere.
The linked RT article says she’s a Turk. She has a Turkish name. Seems she’s a Turk.
Lots of Turks look pretty White.
She’s neither hot nor plain. Just an average, somewhat plump, female.
She claims to have fessed up to the truth about the rapists because friends urged her it could help prevent future assaults by the same men. I bet they also urged her that she could get in trouble for lying.
She reported the rape in the hope of getting her handbag back. Her new solution is to no longer carry a handbag.
No, she is a Jewess. Selin is a name of Hebrew origin. Goren is a surname of Ashkenazim origin. A turkroach would have known not to hang around Muslims unguarded.
You greatly overestimate the chastity of Jewesses.
And where did I say Jewesses are chaste?
You suggest that she did not expect to be raped, that she was not deliberately going into high risk situations, and continuing to go into high risk situations.
But the only reason she reported this at all was that she hoped to get her handbag back.
I don’t follow and I am not sure how I suggested that. English is not my first language.
Jewesses are easy lays and will ask for it up the ass. They’ll hand blowjobs out like candy. I’m familar enough with them to know they aren’t chaste.
“Indeed one of the primary functions of patriarchy is to overrule female choice so that pussy goes to males who are high status in the ostensible male hierarchy, rather than high status in the disturbing and hard to fathom way that women perceive status – so that pussy goes to high IQ prosocial, well behaved, brave and hard working males, rather than to the Jack Dawson character in the film “Titanic†– an unsuccessful musician with no apparent means of support, whose numerous real life equivalents live mostly by sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.”
180 Jim, 180.
I don’t think the way females perceive high status is disturbing and hard to fathom.
I think it’s downright bad and evil, running 24/7, in the same way entropy is bad and evil and running 24/7.
Gravity isn’t disturbing and hard to fathom, it’s just how it is. Your job is not to fall off the cliff.
Females aren’t disturbing and hard to fathom, they’re just how they are. Your job is to stop them from making their dumb bad decisions.
If they made good decisions without patriarchy, patriarchy wouldn’t exist because it wouldn’t be necessary.
But they don’t, and it is.
“Gravity isn’t disturbing and hard to fathom, it’s just how it is. Your job is not to fall off the cliff.
Females aren’t disturbing and hard to fathom, they’re just how they are. Your job is to stop them from making their dumb bad decisions.”
Yeah, but cliffs can’t disguise themselves as verdant meadows.
Women can (for a time, and while it behooves them to do so) disguise themselves.
Therefore: Disturbing. And for some: hard to fathom.
“Your job is to stop them from making their dumb bad decisions.”
Patriarchy need not exist men historically have made more decisions than women, considering men have been in positions of authority compared to women.
Try that again…Patriarchy need not exist, since men historically have made more poorer decisions than women, considering men have been in positions of authority compared to women.
Did you know that statistically speaking, people who wear helmets are more likely to get head injuries?
“Did you know that statistically speaking, people who wear helmets are more likely to get head injuries?”
So you resort to some off topic remark rather than address my point. That’s typical on your part. Right in your intellectual wheelhouse.
Clearly you’re just too uncultured and aspergic to appreciate such a subtle and elegant evisceration of your mushy minded fallacies.
It’s gratifying that she turn out to be a Turk. Unfortunately, one can all too easily imagine a leftist German woman doing the same thing.
A comment above suggests she is a Jew.
And a lot of Turks are secular and westernized anyway, so not that psychologically different than liberal Whites
Hmpfffff.
I think she’s a plain woman at best, with low morals. Speaking plainly, she’s a tire biter. Most liberal women are. they’re raised that way. Is she representative of women in general? No, she’s representative of liberals maybe. High status? Maybe for somebody that lives in a ghetto or trailer park.
I say that she’s prolly bat shit crazy and that if our host were to share a couple drinks with the lady prior yo shagging her – he would prolly come to the same conclusion and head for the hills rather than continue.
I’m thinking sex with monkeys is the only sex she is capable of.
Actually, the best girls would be left of center. That is because Western society is left of center, and a girl who does not seriously think about politics (as they shouldnt- they are women after all) will naturally and blindly copy whatever respectable society believes in.
The worst girls are political Conservatives, Trump supporters, those on the alt-right, etc. They usually suffer from severe special snowflake syndrome, are attention whores, and tend to be huge sluts.
The best girls have no carefully thought out reasons for opposing the leftist culture, but will admit in private that they find it confusing and that it makes them uncomfortable.
Pretty much all outspokenly political girls are actually leftist, e.g. the childless unmarried Ann Coulter, childless married Theresa May, childless re-married Angela Merkel.
I smell the bitter jealous tears of a man who has not been laid in a long time.
She is the national spokeswoman for Linksjugend, which is the youth movement of the major political party Die Linke that provides the leader of one German state, is part of the governing coalition of that state, and gets a decent vote and substantial political influence in several German states.
Higher socioeconomic status than most of us.
Oh, and she continually travels the world on the taxpayer’s dime to places where unaccompanied women get fucked one hell of a lot – she is on much the same trail as a political activist as the trail for older female sex tourists.
And therefore, since your claim to higher socioeconomic status is clearly motivated by bitter jealous rage, I do not believe your claims that you are higher sex market status than she is.
Your claim of higher socioeconomic status is clearly motivated. And if your claim of higher sex market status was true, there would be no motivation for your claim of higher socioeconomic status.
I notice that none of those deprecating her looks claim to have kicked someone who looks like her out of their bed. And I would not believe them if they did claim that. Well I have not kicked someone who looks like her out of my bed either, but I have gently eased one or two out of my bed.
You are aware that there are PUAs with notch counts well above 50, right?
Her socio-economic status is higher than most of ours; but she is weighty as she is wealthy, and a considerable portion of above-average men out there would rather masturbate than spend a night trapped in that gravity well she creates when she lays in bed.
Jim, it’s more likely you have such a high sex drive you would be okay with a quickie with her; That’s okay. But not every man who would pass her up is a sexual reject.
On second thought, if horney enough, I too would fuck her.
Honestly is brutal, yet crucial.
Wealth plays no role in sexual attractiveness.
Re wealth and attraction – not true, even for women: given two women identical in looks but one is rich, most would pick the wealthier one, especially if one has any skill at getting women to pay for stuff. That, and the wealthier one is, looks equal, likely to have a more interesting personality and be more sexually adventurous.
And of course for men, wealth can be a very important component for attracting women, since wealth can be a proxy for such elements as power, high confidence and drive, elements more important to women than looks.
All rich women are scum. How can a woman be rich except she stole it from some man?
As for wealthy men, it is complicated. Sure wealth helps. Even my very modest ability to show a girl a good time helps a little bit. But you need charisma. Wealth without charisma will not get you laid. Charisma without wealth will get you laid. Wealth makes it easier to apply charisma – for example one can make sure the bartender treats you as the important person that you are pretending to be by having previously tipped him generously. You can provide a nice environment that causes a woman to just feel like hanging around, giving you the opportunity to apply charisma – or possibly a smack across the face. But wealth just gets your foot in the door.
Women only care about wealth if they are looking for provider betas, and they may make a conscious decision to look for a provider beta, and therefore look for wealth, which gets you a foot in the door, but if no tingle, she forgets her conscious decision, and you get no pussy.
For wealth to get women, you have to purchase power, which is unreasonably expensive and well outside my very limited price range.
Wealth really does not help that much. Wealth can purchase you the opportunity to meet women and meet them under favorable circumstances, but all it does is get your foot in the door, get you a short time to make your pitch and perform as the dancing monkey.
Women are a lot more willing to give a rich guy a chance, or someone who superficially appears rich a chance, but once you have got a chance, then still have to win them over.
I can’t disagree with any of that, Jim – I was pointing out the flaws in jay’s wrongheaded absolutism about wealth.
Interesting way of looking at female wealth – I’ve never thought of it that way and it does have merit. But even if we accept it as true, and I accept say, that I am intrinsically biased to see wealth as desirable in and of itself, I stand by my thought experiment: of two women identical in age and appearance but differing in wealth (and therefore in personality), most men would prefer to fuck the wealthier one. Marrying her is a different and more complicated story, but I was talking fucking here.
As for male wealth, I hope my phrase ‘wealth can be a proxy for such elements as power, high confidence and drive’ is a nugget that contains within it some of the elements you have expanded upon.
Your point about charisma and beta providing is absolutely vital and is why, in this era, men have no choice but to know Game if they wish to be remotely happy with women. No Game means either rapid infidelity or a fat wife and the missionary position on your birthday, no matter how thin she was for a few years there, and no matter what mansions you provided her.
There is no way my son will be as lucky as I was in earlier years of the sexual revolution, a confused beta for three decades. But having inherited my spergy beta genes, he is at least better equipped to understand the evolutionary necessity of Game. Getting him to try field tests has been another story. But the longest journey begins with a single step.
“All rich women are scum. How can a woman be rich except she stole it from some man?”
What about the widows and daughters of rich men? Or those lawyerettes you guys whine about? Or Sarah Palin? I’m sure I can give other examples of rich women who didn’t steal their wealth from some man…
Widows of rich men tend to be a bit old for my tastes, daughters of rich men have either not received it yet, or have pissed it all away.
Hell, I am no millionaire, Jim. I’m just an old world man who was raised in better times by better people. In my world a slut’s a slut regardless of finances. If you want to tell me that this chubster is the pinnacle of female desirability…? Pbbbbffffft! Sure, whatever, dude. Have it your way.
My status? Well, I’m not wealthy but I’m free and my bills are paid. My wife’s a great woman in the sack and out – and I wouldn’t have the time of day for that girl or her obvious problems. In my eyes she’s a woman fit for low men and they can have her. My point is this – if a man of moderate means like me would turn his nose up at her – men of REAL status and power wouldn’t give her a second glance.
>I smell the bitter jealous tears of a man who has not been laid in a long time.
This kind of argument is deeply problematic jim and liable to ultimately be counter-productive on balance. Wow, just wow, i cant even. #triggered
Yeah! Me too! I want a safe space and a bottle of fine scotch (paid for at Jim’s expense) to compensate for my hurt feelings!!!
🙂
Girls are so weird.
I really wish that research would be allowed into this.
Because I really don’t want these speculations to be true, that there’s maybe 5% bad apples in any group.
As usual everybody on the internet pretending they only fuck the platonic perfect woman, maybe women.
Men are better at everything than women, including being women amirite. /swish
I’d love to see a post dedicated to the phenomenon of the ‘strange and hard to understand female measurement of status’. It’s possibly the least explained part of the PUA opus.
Mark Yuray (above) implies it’s obvious, but of course elaborates nothing.
Why do women love bad boys, and why did nature not imbue them with a better filter? The male ability to pick a fertile woman from a crowd is uncanny; a women can be saturated with truly high status men and go out of their way to choose the loud bum. Why?
And Jim seems to imply that its actually women’s natural position to be so wrong, and that Patriarchy is required to force smart choices? Firstly, I’m not sure why that would be their natural state (evolutionaryily speaking), and secondly, if it is the case, then men are entirely to blame for the current ubiquity of the problem.
“Dan”,
_Why do women love bad boys…_
It has to do with this group being prone to the philosophy of anarchy, and such individuals give and impression of power in a summed up as “nobody rules me, I am my own boss”. It’s the perceived power that they’re attracted to.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
What signifies a fertile woman now, signified a fertile woman in the ancestral environment. Women face a more complex task, and the changes wrought by modernity can throw them off. To see where they go off the rails, let us look at romantic movies.
In many romantic movies (King prince billionaire vampire) the scenario is wildly unrealistic and artificially set up so that they don’t go off the rails. In “Titanic”, however, the protagonist makes a choice that in real life would be horribly wrong (failed musician with no visible means of support). And in most movies set in something like the real world, the women make absolutely awful choices that would be completely disastrous in real life.
I think the answer is conqueror syndrome. In the ancestral environment, women simply did not get to choose, or had their choices severely constrained. If women have choice, indicates social collapse, in which case male support is unlikely. So women want to fuck the new winners. If the existing male status hierarchy cannot control women, women despise it, and look for conqueror males – those who also despise and defy the existing male hierarchy.
I think the existing environment has triggered behavior in women that would be appropriate in a conquered and defeated tribe in a state of social collapse. That just as dogs become neurotic if their owner is not clearly alpha to them, women become neurotic when they are emancipated. Men are adapted to making sexual choices under conditions that are now the same as they ever where. Women generally did not get to make sexual choices, and when they did, was a revolutionary act conducted under conditions of social collapse. Men make choices based on physical cues that mean the same as ever they did. Women make choices based on social cues, which cues are now highly abnormal by the standards of environment of evolutionary adaptation.
To control female behavior, we have to provide them with paleo social stimuli. Needs to be better correlation between male status and making holes in people with a sharp object. Also, disrespect for males of superior social status has to have great likelihood of primitive physical violence. We need to distribute police functions to the entire category of high status males, rather than having a specialized group. We also need to legalize simple minded crude primitive violence under a variety of common circumstances, especially violence against women.
If two men want to have a fight, let them. If one man acts in a recklessly provocative manner, he wants to have a fight. If someone dies as a result, oh well. If a low status man wants to fight a high status man, high status men will unfairly cooperate to beat the hell out of him.
Woman are uncomfortable if status in male society is too subtle for them to understand. So we need theater that will impress them, status that has status markers that would be familiar to a cavewoman, just as today’s signs of female fertility would be familiar to a caveman.
And all women belong to some man who is responsible for their behavior and has authority to punish them. If the state or society has a problem with some woman’s behavior, it asks “Whose woman is this?”, and then tells that man to take care of the problem, as they would the owner of a pet or a stray farm animal.
Women are uncomfortable if they are not controlled by quite forceful means. So we need theater that will impress them, authority that has characteristics of authority that would be familiar to a cavewoman, just as today’s signs of female fertility would be familiar to a caveman. Women need to be hit with a stick, or to at least believe that they are exposed to real possibility that they might be hit with a stick, subjected to theater that makes them nervous they might be beaten with a stick, because anything less signifies weakness, and women then wander off looking for strength.
This would align female perceptions of status and genetic quality with the ostensible male hierarchy. Have to create a social scene for women where it at least looks to woman as if the males we want them to fuck can kill the males we don’t want them to fuck, and all males are automatically higher status than all women, hence all males automatically privileged to administer physical punishment except that she is under the supervision of another male. It does not need to be quite that way really, but has to look enough like that the female subconscious likes it and is comfortable with it.
If we implement a system that is in fact a little more civilized, we cannot let it look too civilized. Just as a garden is an imitation of wild nature, our civilization must at least pretend to be primitive murderous violent patriarchy, as a garden pretends to be a wilderness, for the sake of the woman, who cannot endure civilization any more than men can be entirely separated from wilderness.
I might add that male instincts can be and have been modified though artificial selection, mainly by putting rule-breakers to death. No such thing has been done to females because you get more babies by coercing all women than by culling half of them in every generation.
The consequence of poor (or no) selection is poor optimization; being poorly suited for any particular role in general.
Genetic behaviourism in this capacity is not important, though.
A.J.P.
Because women are so valuable from a reproductive stand-point, female genes never really underwent the same evolutionary pressures male genes did. Most groups of men in history were willing to sacrifice for and subsidize the existence of even sub-standard or defective women.
The modern woman as she exists today is, basically, an evolutionary reject.
That is the true price of pedestalization.
_Arch_ in a word like “patriarch”, is definitely a reference to the State, and women say “We don’t want to be controlled by the patriarchy” in a clear no-means-yes way. But what they want is to be controlled and ruled over but they want to have this done to them by the most powerful, those who run the state itself. But that’s because it plays to their nature, a lust and over-much zeal for security, to be closest to the most powerful in this way.
But _a_ patriarchy (not _the_ patriarchy, mind you), is not involved with the controlling of women. It is a few steps removed. Sure, “patriarchy” is a buzz word in Autumn, 2016, but let not give the power of redefinition to those, in terms of civil goverment, who can’t participate constructively.
A.J.P.
*Spring of 2016 for some…
‘women say “We don’t want to be controlled by the patriarchy†in a clear no-means-yes way”
No, they say it clearly as NO.
“But what they want is to be controlled and ruled over but they want to have this done to them by the most powerful, those who run the state itself.”
You’re not as bad as Jim with your logic, but you’re bridging that gap with this statement. Most women do not seek nor desire to be controlled nor strong-armed by men on a regular basis. They certainly do not want the reinstitution of patriarchy by maniacal males such as yourself who believe they know what is best for everyone. How elitist and fascist of you to demand women immediately fall to your kow-tow meme.
>How elitist and fascist of you to demand women immediately fall to your kow-tow meme.
“Every woman adores a Fascist.”
– Sylvia Plath
>How elitist and fascist of you
Ps any time corv goes ‘beep boop greetingks my felloww altrighters’ you can just link to this post, no further commentary needed.
Some odd things about this post and attendant comments.
The real point of the post was sidetracked by arguments about attractiveness.
Then people started accusing each other of not getting very much sex with beautiful, chaste, and interesting women.
If we only had to post a pic of our significant other to participate in this discussion, how bereft of remarks the comments might be.
Another thing: are we judging this beauty contest based on one photo of the Jewish (or Turkish) slut?
Let me remind everyone that different hairstyles, makeup, clothes and even lighting can drastically affect “attractiveness”.
Pick an actress you think is a “10” or “9”. Then look for bad pictures of her on the internet. I will bet you find some pics that, if that were the only one you’d seen, you’d think she was a “5”. And *that* photo was presumably snapped in public. Try looking at some of this livestock when they first emerge from the bedclothes.
The real ugliness of this woman is the fact that she tried to blame a crime on White males because her worldview didn’t allow for sacred “marginalized” races to do anything mean.
Calling her unattractive might be personal taste, or it might be sour grapes.
Calling her low socioeconomic status is definitely sour grapes.
These two photos look made by a professional photographer, hence probably close to most flattering. So, apply the necessary mental correction.
The article says she is of “Turkish origin” . She is a heavy in this picture. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/selin-goeren-a-1100990.html
Jim, the King/Conqueror model probably has some merit, but it does not explain the entirety of what women really want. Why do they like lay-abouts so much, for example? And that’s among men – even within a given man, why do women, especially the hotter and crazier, ie the more estrogenized and womanly, invariably dry up sexually the more you put yourself in the provider role? Why do they throw dramas on birthdays and Feb 14 and so on, then buy you stuff and fuck your brains out when you punish them for throwing dramas?
I will tell the tale. The whole thing unfolds almost with the logic of calculus.
Say biologists discover a different new species, maybe in deep sea vents. It’s not always easy to tell male from female – how do they define sex? We don’t all have the XX/XY chromosome system; there are lots of other variants. In seahorses, the male is ‘pregnant.’ In Point Counterpoint, Huxley describes a worm in which the male lives like a parasite, entirely within the female’s reproductive tract.
Here’s the answer: the female is the one with the larger gamete. Eggs, in mammals. And that tells you something important right there. It is efficient to have a small male gamete that does nothing but carry DNA, and a larger female gamete that does that, plus carry a nurturing boost to get the embryo started. BY DEFINITION, at least at conception, females are the nurturing sex. And of course, that nurturing role goes on steroids in many species – humans for example – a lifelong commitment to rearing extremely time-consuming, slowly developing offspring. Especially these days, with all the NEETS.
So woman have no choice but to nurture. They produce relatively few of their big, expensive gametes in a lifetime, so they are the reproductively valuable sex compared to us men, with our trillion lifetime sperm. One man and a hundred women could regenerate the entire species; one woman and a hundred men is Lord of the Flies. Women are spared the fights and ordeals of men, and are sought after, and fought over, and provided for. At least among Eurasians. All women are pretty much the same, differing only on the familiar attractiveness/fertility/physiognomy scale, because women have only one reproductive strategy: nurture.
And most men have the same strategy: find a woman and nurture her so she will nurture your kids. These men range from regular guys right up to the builders of civilization. These are beta males, from the most struggling misfit to the great beta providers.
But note that unlike women, men don’t have to nurture. Entire groups of men, like West Africans, don’t do it much, and instead compete with each other in a winner-takes-all fertility lottery. Among Eurasians, some men find womanizing strategies to reduce the nurture component: warriors and concubines, polygamists (concurrent and serial) and harems, Don Juan charmers and village beauties. That and just outright cuckolding your nerdy cousin with his cute wife. Note that the stakes can be very high in these strategies: a lifetime of war, a lifetime of struggling to be chief bull goose Mormon, or a lifetime of ducking cuckold’s hatchets. But the rewards can also be high: since all human couples over time only average two offspring raised to adulthood, three raised with less-to-no parental involvement by one of these strategies represents a tremendous advantage. And a hundred Don Juan bastards all over Spain with no male parenting at all spreads those slick Willy genes like wildfire.
Now the thing is, every woman is programmed to detect that womanizing behavior, and reward it. Every mother behaves as if her son can be a womanizer: it is the reason women spoil their sons – they are unwittingly bringing them up to live off of women instead of provide for their families, and among Eurasians, it takes a father in the family to make sure this does not happen.
The sexual hierarchy is like this: women are in middle – they are all forced to be providers by nature, but they are rewarded by being sought after and pedestalized by most men, the betas. But if a man is born with the ability to flip the script, or can learn it, then he can make women chase him, and buy him things, and let him lie around as much as he wants and still fuck him with enthusiasm she will never show the poor guy struggling to provide for her.
To paraphrase your analysis:
For civilization to succeed, we want all men to follow the provider strategy, and any male who cannot or will not follow the provider strategy to get no pussy.
But to women, men who follow the provider strategy look like losers. They would rather be inseminated with winner semen.
Nice and succinct. But I have found that, while most men cannot be brought to that conclusion, the few who can need to be persuaded by the ‘inexorable logic of nature’ that I have outlined, at the risk of appearing tl/dr. They usually need this persuasion in stages.
Note too, that to a Darwinist like me, who is aware of evolutionary stable strategies and Nash equilibria, it is impossible that all men could follow the provider strategy. What we want is to alter the mix to favor the providers by restoring patriarchy. The womanizing evolutionary niche is unfortunately like the parasitical Jewish one – if it did not exist, our complex society would have to evolve it.
Game is called ‘Game’ for several reasons, but Game Theory is the most intellectually sophisticated one.
Jack: “But if a man is born with the ability to flip the script, or can learn it, then he can make women chase him, and buy him things, and let him lie around as much as he wants and still fuck him with enthusiasm she will never show the poor guy struggling to provide for her.”
This is undeniably true, in many instances. Very nice post, btw.
But, is there a modifying temporal factor? We’re all familiar with “alpha fucks, beta bucks”.
There are a couple of well-known clichés: the woman who engages in lots of sex with lots of men while young; then getting a bit more mature, settles down with a beta male who can support her (and also any children fathered by passing alphas). She may even be faithful, for the rest of her life to this “good guy”; she will be content to remember her “fun years”.
A second cliché: the woman who marries for “security”, and cheats on her husband with strong young males. She has no intention of living with them, but she may reward them with some material goods or cash if she is wealthy and or grateful enough.
A case for pure “let him lie around as much as he wants and still fuck him with enthusiasm” on an ongoing basis: can that be made without some sense of it being a temporary event? I do know of women who supported layabouts (and drunks) well into middle-age; I wonder how common it is outside the Negro community though.
All good points. I was referring more to the tendency of women to support alphas, rather than lifelong, physical commitments. And I agree, I have seldom if ever seen a lasting commitment of the provider-woman/layabout guy type in Eurasians: the woman either gets tired of supporting the lower-to-no-income alpha (this is a huge thing among female doctors and similar professionals now: the better looking ones marry other doctors, the plainer ones marry layabout adventurers) and kicks him out eventually, or the (relative) alpha moves on to a younger, hotter number.
I like to emphasize the within-one-man comparisons of the dichotomy, rather than the between-male-types comparisons. What the average guy needs to understand, what I observed with my girlfriend, was that the more I acted like a provider, the more she took me for granted and the worse the sex; the more I maintained independence, charm and a ‘next one is always waiting’ attitude, the better the interactions, both sexual and non-sexual.
“What the average guy needs to understand, what I observed with my girlfriend, was that the more I acted like a provider, the more she took me for granted and the worse the sex; the more I maintained independence, charm and a ‘next one is always waiting’ attitude, the better the interactions, both sexual and non-sexual.”
What the average guy needs to understand is to rely on their own experiences with women, rather than depend on YOUR interactions as being universally truth. Your trials and tribulations are not necessarily representative of all or even most of men-women relationships.
Why don’t you ask her specifically why the sex was “worse” when you acted as a provider and “better” when you in essence threatened to take away that role?
AWALT
Your account of what women are like inclines me to doubt you have a lot of contact with women.
As if a woman would know the answer to why she acts as she does, or even be aware that she acts as she does.
Jim, your experiences with women were confined to being married and having a girlfriend on the side when your wife was dying. I wouldn’t call you a credible source as to what makes women tick, given your knack for wild generalizations that are easily disproven.
“sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.”
This trope has appeared numerous times. Jim’s sister squandered her life by boinking sweater-folders. To what extent does this biographical detail weigh on Jim’s ideologies, impeding his objectivity?
Was not my sister. My sister screwed up her life in a different way. I have multiple independent data points for the propensity of high IQ high socioeconomic status hot chicks to piss away their money, their youth, and their fertile years on sweater folding losers.
Plus, there is the romance literature and movies. The character of Jack Dawson in “The Titanic” is an unsuccessful musician with no visible means of support. The character of Johny Strabo in “The wild one” is a drunken violent petty criminal with no visible means of support. Those are arguably the most famous romantic love interests of all time.
“The wild one” starts off with Johnny Strabo and the rest of his gang being run out of town for receiving stolen goods, so they go to the next town to get drunk, and he meets the female love interest.
As a result of various petty crimes, wrongful acts, and general bad behavior, he gets run out of town, meets love interest in next town, gets beaten up, imprisoned, and then gets run out of the love interest’s town, parting him from the female love interest.
“I have multiple independent data points for the propensity of high IQ high socioeconomic status hot chicks to piss away their money, their youth, and their fertile years on sweater folding losers.”
What you have are anecdotal stories being used as the sole basis of evidence to declare unequivocal truth. That is, only YOUR observations matter compared to anyone else. If their experiences fail to match up with your experiences, you outright dismiss them.
Certainly your observations have an element of truth to them, but to use it squarely as THE source for everything and anything is irrational.
Fits my anecdotal experiences as well. Fits them extremely well, actually.
There is a tricky part to understanding women that necessitates accepting that they do not know what they want. If women know what they want you can talk with them about it and infer what they want. However if you reason that women do not know what they want you can never rely on their opinion which means as a man you have to figure it out all by yourself.
Luckily the internet created spaces where men huddled together and solved the puzzle of what women really want like the manosphere. E.g. Rollo Tomassi @ therationalmale.com is brilliant. All of them come to the same dark conclusions about the nature of women. Jim imo takes these findings to their logical conclusion.
“There is a tricky part to understanding women that necessitates accepting that they do not know what they want. If women know what they want you can talk with them about it and infer what they want. However if you reason that women do not know what they want you can never rely on their opinion which means as a man you have to figure it out all by yourself.”
Here are the layers we are dealing with:
1.What the Woman Really Wants (Biologically Dictated)
2. What the Woman Thinks or Guesses She Wants (Often Unsure)
3.What the Woman Tells You She Wants (Often this has no resemblance to #1, and is, like a Tarot Reading, very apt to change momentarily; also different depending on each listener she tells it to)
4. What the Woman Wants b/c her Female Friends tell her she should. This will blend with #2, creating a sometimes unstable mix, resulting in contradictory behaviors.
An implication of this is that women lack agency. That, not knowing what they want, should never be allowed to make important decisions except under male supervision.
This is most obvious with their frequently disastrous decisions to divorce. And I say this never having been divorced, never having been in the slightest danger of being divorced, despite routinely and repeatedly doing all the things that are supposedly reasons for women to divorce men.
Men who treat women badly are never divorced. It is precisely men who treat women well who are divorced, frequently with absolutely disastrous consequences for the woman divorcing the man. In every case of divorce that I know of, I know of entirely from the woman, and it was nonetheless glaringly obvious to me that she would be far better off if she had been forbidden to be disrespectful to her husband, forbidden to speak back to him, compelled to always be sexually available to him, and forbidden to ever sleep with anyone else.
Alfred…
“Fits my anecdotal experiences as well. Fits them extremely well, actually.”
YOUR experiences. NOT every male’s encounters or dealings.
“There is a tricky part to understanding women that necessitates accepting that they do not know what they want. If women know what they want you can talk with them about it and infer what they want. However if you reason that women do not know what they want you can never rely on their opinion which means as a man you have to figure it out all by yourself.”
Women are actually quite clear what they want. They don’t want to be hit by a stick by a man who unilaterally states they are getting out of line.
“Luckily the internet created spaces where men huddled together and solved the puzzle of what women really want like the manosphere. E.g. Rollo Tomassi @ therationalmale.com is brilliant. All of them come to the same dark conclusions about the nature of women. Jim imo takes these findings to their logical conclusion.”
Akin to feminazis, who create their own wild generalizations. In both cases, they are their own echo chambers. Of course each side is going to make their case that the other gender is at fault for our current social problems.
JRM…
Here we go yet again with you dictating what is absolute truth.
1.What the Woman Really Wants (Biologically Dictated)
Biologically AND environmentally dictated.
2. What the Woman Thinks or Guesses She Wants (Often Unsure)
Based on the available information at the time, or due to mixed emotions, or the result of (gasp) rational thought.
3.What the Woman Tells You She Wants (Often this has no resemblance to #1, and is, like a Tarot Reading, very apt to change momentarily; also different depending on each listener she tells it to)
Similar to men’s thinking.
4. What the Woman Wants b/c her Female Friends tell her she should. This will blend with #2, creating a sometimes unstable mix, resulting in contradictory behaviors.
Similar to the actions of men.
Jim…
“An implication of this is that women lack agency.”
PEOPLE lack agency.
“Men who treat women badly are never divorced.”
Lay off the sauce. It is EXACTLY why men and women divorce. Each perceives the situation as being untenable and unworkable because they are being treated in a manner that contradicts their vows. If you would just for once avoid using “all” or “never” or “always”, you may actually have a point. But you can’t help yourself, you’re just that delusional.
Men keep projecting agency onto women, as if women were men, keep being surprised, puzzled, and confused.
The simple uncomplicated truth is that women, like children, lack agency.
If you think that your experiences differ from my own, it is not because your experiences differ from my own, it is because you did not comprehend what was going on.
I have seen lots of men who treat women badly. I treat women badly. My sisters tell me so frequently. Never seen any male ever divorced for bad behavior. Regularly see them cuckolded and divorced for good behavior, usually with bad consequences for the woman divorcing them.
jim: “I have seen lots of men who treat women badly. I treat women badly. My sisters tell me so frequently. Never seen any male ever divorced for bad behavior. Regularly see them cuckolded and divorced for good behavior, usually with bad consequences for the woman divorcing them.”
This accords with my observations as well.
The only exception is the woman who divorces her husband who treats her badly because her female friends have dedicated themselves to getting her away from him.
They will coach, counsel, and cajole her into the proceedings, which she will promptly abandon if the husband courts her just a little bit. Her friends will do all they can to keep them apart.
If gone through with (b/c husband didn’t care enough to bother winning her back) she will be shocked at what has happened, and be quite miserable. Perhaps her friends aren’t even surprised, on some level, that she finds herself thus.
“I have seen lots of men who treat women badly. I treat women badly. My sisters tell me so frequently. Never seen any male ever divorced for bad behavior. Regularly see them cuckolded and divorced for good behavior, usually with bad consequences for the woman divorcing them.â€
Jim underestimates the efficacy of Cathedralist internalization. Many women today simply are not women like they used to be, they have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe they are men, and consequently they have become, for all intents and purposes, men with tits. They get wet for feminist weakling men because that is what they’ve been trained to get wet for. Women are obedient, that hasn’t changed, but they have become obedient to what Jim calls Uncle Sam the Big Pimp who orders them not to be obedient to anyone else.
Nature has given women all the power, because sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. If a woman is regularly being hit with a stick by her man for regularly getting out of line, that is probably what she does want, while the poor fellow who is regularly hitting her with a stick would prefer some peace and quiet.
If women knew what they wanted, it would not be such a mystery.
Expanding on my previous comment. PUAs claim that women are the gate keepers to sex but men are the gatekeepers to relationships. That is just irrational optimism. Truth is that women are the gate keepers to sex, sexual relationships, and all things reproduction related, and any of us males who have any success with women are just dancing monkeys, dancing for their entertainment.
And sometimes the dancing monkey that gets the peanuts is the one who hits them with a stick when they get out of line.
“Truth is that women are the gate keepers to sex, sexual relationships, and all things reproduction related, and any of us males who have any success with women are just dancing monkeys, dancing for their entertainment.”
No, that is not the truth. It depends upon the couple as to who is in control regarding sex and reproduction. Some men are able to hold their ground, while other men are subject to being led by women. It could be that women are the ones who want men to make important decisions, or there is a joint decisions as to what they want.
Alternatively, the men could work together woth wosdom and foresight and keep the bitches in line.
@Corvinus: “Here we go yet again with you dictating what is absolute truth.”
And, alas, here we go again with you proclaiming the astounding, radical, and life-changing argument that there are exceptions to every rule, and that people should be cautious about over-generalizing.
Shock and astound (indeed, save us) next with the advice to look both ways before crossing a busy street.
“What is truth?”- Pontius Pilate
“And, alas, here we go again with you proclaiming the astounding, radical, and life-changing argument that there are exceptions to every rule, and that people should be cautious about over-generalizing.”
It’s not even about “exceptions to every rule”. It’s challenging the very notion that, in every single situation and circumstance, you and Jim know decidedly better about women. That while you acknowledge the “exceptions”, your observations are the standard rule. No questions asked.
When you say “Senior year in High School through their ‘twenties and even early ‘thirties, they fall squarely in the behavior patterns Jim discussed here”, this trend based on YOUR experiences. When you universally apply this trend to any and all situations by which YOU alone define as being the absolute rule, you (and Jim) come across as being an arrogant ass.
Yes, there is truth when you make this statement–“After they turn fifty, I don’t believe any sensible woman desires much Alpha behavior. They don’t relish the potential for violence or shows of excessive masculine strength.”
Then you cavalierly add “These women even begin to develop some agency.” Except…women possess agency. They have both the capacity and the physical ability to act in the world according to their own desires. We can certainly argue whether those desires are rational or irrational, and we can certainly argue to what extent some of their decisions are beneficial or detrimental to men. But to merely go full retard and unilaterally claim women as a whole lack agency is beyond the pale.
You attribute to women agency equal or comparable to that of men. That is an error of projection made by men who have not had much contact with women or success with women.
That female agency is dramatically less than that of men is as obvious as it is that females are physically weaker than men.
Female agency improves considerably at menopause, but before then, should never be treated as legal adults.
“That is an error of projection made by men who have not had much contact with women or success with women.”
This is exactly what I’m talking about. As Vox Day states, “disqualify, disqualify, disqualify”. It is the only defense you are able to muster. You do not have the intimate knowledge regarding my interactions, or lack thereof, with women. Thus, your statement is other than accurate.
“That female agency is dramatically less than that of men is as obvious as it is that females are physically weaker than men.”
No, it is not obvious that female agency is dramatically less than that of men, considering that men, given their positions of leadership for thousands of years, have caused infinitively more physical and psychological damage to humankind. It’s not even close.
“Female agency improves considerably at menopause, but before then, should never be treated as legal adults.”
Do you have any hard core scientific studies regarding this phenomenon? Please cite.
Otherwise, all you have is at your disposal is wild speculation and confirmation bias, which is a toxic mix of irrationality. Only men of considerable low character take your assertion at face value.
I sometimes think there is even an evolutionary rationale to women not knowing what they want in men: by lacking insight into their simultaneous desire for bad boy/spoiled boy cock and beta-provisioning, they stand a much better chance of getting some of both. If they had insight, they might be forced to choose.
But women kinda do know what they want: that guy with the hot chick on his arm. Course, why does THAT chick want him?
>Certainly your observations have an element of truth to them, but to use it squarely as THE source for everything and anything is irrational.
When science is a lie and free thought will cost you your job, all you have are observations from people you trust.
One modifier to these dynamics that seldom gets brought up here is the age factor.
I’d say that what Jim proclaims is true (very true) from a female’s age of, say, 17 or 18. Before that, at least back in my day, girls were too naïve from puberty to 17 or so to even engage in power-play sexuality. They seem unaware of the darker aspects of the battle between the sexes. That age may be significantly lower these days, I don’t really know.
From say Senior year in High School through their ‘twenties and even early ‘thirties, they fall squarely in the behavior patterns Jim discussed here.
From maybe late-30s through 40s, they seem to mature and sober to the point they can begin to appreciate a good, financially sound Beta. They may still shit-test, but not as much. By their forties, they will avoid dangerous men unless they are already involved with one from earlier in their life. Then all bets are off.
After they turn fifty, I don’t believe any sensible woman desires much Alpha behavior. They don’t relish the potential for violence or shows of excessive masculine strength. These women even begin to develop some agency. Could it be b/c they are past reproductive age? Or is it acquired life experience? Or both?
In their sixties on, I think they want a companion and friend in their man. I don’t think they desire any hint of violence. Which is good, for they are getting to an age where injuries are more serious, and healing is slower.
So when people say NAWALT, I can agree, esp. to this extent: I doubt any 70 year-old wives want to be hit, ever. Or even think much about it.
I’ll cheerfully accept correction from those who have studied this question in greater depth.
There is, and always has been all my life, considerable variation in the age at which these behavior patterns set in. But yes, not all seventeen year olds are like that. But it is not like they all go feral at seventeen or eighteen and are all sweet innocent little girls before that. Some of them, quite a lot of them, go feral at nine. I would say sixteen to seventeen is the most common age at which these behavior patterns set in, rather than seventeen eighteen, but there are plenty who transform sooner, and plenty who transform later. Plenty of girls are like that from nine or ten onwards, plenty are not like that until eighteen or twenty.
Much truth in that.
” Plenty of girls are like that from nine or ten onwards, plenty are not like that until eighteen or twenty.”
Very true. I also suspect the very poor and very rich classes produce more little female monsters that are as young as nine or ten. These girls can be unbelievably destructive if they get it in their head to attract attention.
When I was a boy, in a good Lower-Middle (but importantly- still Middle)- Class environment the girls fit my earlier generalizations above.
I wouldn’t be surprised, in our hyper-sexualized and very materialistic culture if the “feral” female ages weren’t squeezing the previously fairly benign years to a bare minimum.
“I also suspect”, which means other than certainty. It perhaps is the case; then again, maybe not.
Your basis of argument rests on personal observations that automatically result in truisms–“Little female monsters as young as nine or ten”…”feral females”…What do these statements actually mean? What is the context?
I am as much fascinated by it as I am repulsed by your thought processes, which are excessively pornographic in nature. It is like watching a train wreck in real time.
See, your basis for your position is predicated upon 1) women lacking agency and 2) men must control women from their own risky decisions. From that perspective, you craft a narrative rooted in absolutes. Any effort by men who have their own perspectives on male-female relations which call into question your version of truth is immediately dismissed. But you have take that route, for admitting that you could be decidedly wrong would expose your “red pill-blue pill” philosophy as a fraud. Again, there may be truth in what you and Jim say, but you go so over the top that people will shake their heads in disbelief.
As an example, women regardless of age want a companion and friend in their man. They generally do not desire violence by that man, especially if he is making the sole decision to strike her because she is a manner that is other than feminine. If a man has to hit a woman with a stick under this pretense, he is succumbing to his own demons.
While I suppose it is not for us to judge someone else’s relationship with Jesus, I extremely doubt that a man who sincerely professes Christ and follows Him would treat his wife by hitting her with a stick–because unfeminine behavior–and then neglect to repent for his savage conduct and make the appropriate amends.
» As an example, women regardless of age want a companion and friend in their man.
ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah
The beta orbiter fallacy.
Woman then leans on her beta orbiter’s shoulder and weeps as she tells him of all the sex she has had with men who cruelly failed to be companionable and friendly.
“Wow!” the beta orbiter thinks. “I am about to score!”
For the past thousands of years, men have been asking “What do women want?”
Clearly it is a hard question without easy answers.
If women knew what they wanted, or if they acted competently and directly to get what they wanted, it would be an easy problem. Therefore women do not know what they want and do not act competently and directly to get it. In this sense, women lack agency, and cannot be allowed to make important decisions without male supervision and guidance.
Also, therefore anyone who thinks that one can simply ask women what they want and get accurate information has not had much contact with women.
That women don’t know what they want is a fairly obvious (in hindsight) conclusion from their role in the sexual marketplace.
Men approach, women sit back and evaluate – although “evaluate” implies conscious decision making which women really don’t use – they “evaluate” their own emotional state and act accordingly. Of those two roles, which requires consciousness about one’s own motivations? Which doesn’t?
Indeed, having the ability to make conscious decisions and stick to them would be harmful to women, since men are generically more intelligent, and the top few percent of men are vastly more intelligent than pretty much any woman, thus capable of confusing any hypothetical conscious decision making woman who isn’t a nazi.
What women want is very simple and obvious from a game theoretic perspective, and their inability to form strategies on the fly means they stick to what works.
As men, we must shape society so that women’s behavior, which can’t be altered except through miscegenation, will be pro-social. Failure to do so will result in the destruction of our race.
Gas the cuckstains, culture war now.
Lil’ Steve…
“That women don’t know what they want is a fairly obvious (in hindsight) conclusion from their role in the sexual
marketplace.”
Women know what they want, it’s just not obvious to you.
“Men approach, women sit back and evaluate – although “evaluate†implies conscious decision making which women really don’t use – they “evaluate†their own emotional state and act accordingly.”
Men or women approach; each evaluates. They both are consciously aware of what they want and don’t want.
They each ponder, they contemplate, they feel.
That is the observable truth of the sexual marketplace.
peppermint…
Indeed, having the abili ty to make conscious decisions and stick to them would be h9o]=;8u07om96jm6to7m d48e76fr5nazqww vfvarmful to women, since men are generically more intellig ent, and the top few percent of men are vastly more intelligent than pretty much any woman, thus capable of confusing any hypothetical conscious decision making woman who isn’t a nazi.
What women want is very simple and obvious from a game theoretic perspective, and their inability to form strategies on the fly means they stick to what works.
As men, we must shape society so that women’s behavior, which can’t be altered except through miscegenation, will be pro-social. Failure to do so will result in the destruction of our race.
Gas the cuckstains, culture war now.
Lil’ Steve…
“That women don’t know what they want is a fairly obvious (in hindsight) conclusion from their role in the sexual
marketplace.”
Women know what they want, it’s just not obvious to you.
“Men approach, women sit back and evaluate – although “evaluate†implies conscious decision making which women really don’t use – they “evaluate†their own emotional state and act accordingly.”
Men or women approach; each evaluates. They both are consciously aware of what they want and don’t want. They each ponder, they contemplate, they feel.
That is the observable truth of the sexual marketplace.
peppermint…
“As men, we must shape society so that women’s behavior, which can’t be altered except through miscegenation, will be pro-social. Failure to do so will result in the destruction of our race.”
It truly bothers you knowing that men have the liberty to make their own choices when it comes to shaping society. They need not adhere to your insane demands.
“Gas the cuckstains, culture war now.”
Yet another tired, meaningless meme.
If women knew what they wanted, would not be so hard for men to figure out.
Anyone who claims it is that easy obviously has not had much contact with women.
I claim I have had some success with women, but everyone says that and no one can prove it. You say you have had some success with women. But everyone who has had some success with women knows that the question “what do women want” is non trivial, and women know the answer less than anyone.
Crow shit…
You don’t know what “observably” means.
“Observably” means “capable of being observed”. Not “something I wish I observed”. Maybe that’ll help you make more sense in the future.
Nah, it won’t – you’re observably incapable of that.
“You don’t know what “observably†means. Observably†means “capable of being observedâ€. Not “something I wish I observedâ€. Maybe that’ll help you make more sense in the future.”
I observe that you are an idiot. I made this statement based on what I have actually seen. These situations are “capable of being observed”–Men or women approach; each evaluates. They both are consciously aware of what they want and don’t want. They each ponder, they contemplate, they feel.
So, it is now incumbent upon yourself to prove that I did NOT observe situations. Go…
Anyone with any familiarity with woman can see that women are not consciously aware of what they want and do not want.
You have had very little contact with female sexuality.
“Anyone with any familiarity with woman can see that women are not consciously aware of what they want and do not want. You have had very little contact with female sexuality.”
You have had very little contact with reality. Women are cognizant of their needs and desires, especially when they bitch and complain in those cases when they do not get them immediately.
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way.
Perhaps it is not so much “what do women want” as it is “what instructions and provision must they be given in order to do and feel what we want”
This correct. Women do not exactly want things. They respond to stimuli.
Well, like I said, they want security. But it’s possible to fool them with the mere semblance of it.
No, they don’t want security. They react sexily to stimuli that in the ancestral environment were positively correlated with security.
Don’t people say that a certain dish or food item “wants salt” or some other flavouring?
It is allowed for men to project their own understandings of reality onto women, without too much of this demeaning over-intellectualisation, “Jim”.
A.J.P.
@Corvinus: Your basis of argument rests on personal observations that automatically result in truisms–…What do these statements actually mean? What is the context?”
What do your incessant questions mean? The more clearly a position is stated, the more confused and bewildered you become.
@Corvinus: “I am as much fascinated by it as I am repulsed by your thought processes, which are excessively pornographic in nature. It is like watching a train wreck in real time.”
What do those statements mean? You respond to my clearly stated assertion by questioning its meaning, then further respond with ad hominin attacks (“pornographic”??).
On the subject of women as fully respectable actors with agency, two questions:
1. Do you endorse the current state of affairs in Europe, in particular the refugee crisis?
Because that is a real-world example of women in action as voters and leaders.
2. Did/do you endorse the Presidency of Obama? It was made possible by female voters. Yes, men voted for him too. But he wouldn’t have won without the female vote. I hope you won’t pretend to not understand this fact, and simply launch more of your (faux?) naïve queries.
We could argue anecdotally all day: the women I’ve observed vs. the wise and competent women (but not all of them!) you cite. Let’s take the two above cases that everyone here has observed, and simply answer if you approve of those two examples of women as decision makers.
JRM, are you seriously that dense?
Jim talks about “Little female monsters as young as nine or ten” and â€feral femalesâ€. There is no context behind these statements. There is no explanation as to how and why females are “little monsters” or are “feral creatures”. If a person is going to take that stand, they best offer a substantive comment.
“1. Do you endorse the current state of affairs in Europe, in particular the refugee crisis?”
Each nation there is able to craft their own immigration as how they see fit, whether it be unlimited, limited, or prohibition. The issue is to what extent are those newcomers able to assimilate into their host countries. That is up to Europeans to decide.
“Because that is a real-world example of women in action as voters and leaders.”
[Laughs] No, that is an example of government leaders making decisions reflective of their citizens, men and women, who put them into office. Remember, immigration policy historically has been created, endorsed, and implemented by men.
“2. Did/do you endorse the Presidency of Obama? It was made possible by female voters. Yes, men voted for him too. But he wouldn’t have won without the female vote. I hope you won’t pretend to not understand this fact, and simply launch more of your (faux?) naïve queries.”
I voted libertarian. Obama won because he received the most support on our national election for the presidency from American citizens, men and women. I prefer to deal with reality, not hypotheticals regarding had women been ineligible to vote, then Obama would have not been elected as president.
“We could argue anecdotally all day: the women I’ve observed vs. the wise and competent women (but not all of them!) you cite. Let’s take the two above cases that everyone here has observed, and simply answer if you approve of those two examples of women as decision makers.”
You are arguing from a false premise–the immigrant crisis in Europe and the eight years of government ruin under the Obama Administration are unequivocally the direct result of female agency.
That the problems of the world, or America, is generally THEIR fault.
So how does one even begin to isolate the myriad of factors that have caused, say America’s political, economic, and social issues, fall squarely on the shoulders of female involvement in the body politic? How does one go about making that monumental case?
Please, by all means, make it.
Regardless, I approve of citizens in the United States making their own choices afforded to them by the rule of law as created by political entities, Supreme Court rulings, and Constitutional Amendments. That is reality, the result of the collective efforts of men and women since our nation’s inception.
Feel free to alter that reality through the concerted efforts of the Alt Right. Best wishes to you in that endeavor.
Most people have no difficulty understanding what I am saying. If you cannot, likely you refuse to understand because of crimestop.
CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity
“CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity.â€
You fit this definition to a T, Jim.
@Corvinus: “So how does one even begin to isolate the myriad of factors that have caused, say America’s political, economic, and social issues, fall squarely on the shoulders of female involvement in the body politic? How does one go about making that monumental case?”
Listen, and I will tell you. First, you have to back up, from the “restatement” of my argument as you rendered it above. You actually clouded the issue, by mixing in lots of factors, i.e. “political, economic, and social”.
Now, once you get back to what I asserted: that current refugee levels in Europe are intrinsically tied to female leaders and voters; and that the Presidency of BHO is due to a coalition of voters of which females were key; all you then have to do is what people do every day, esp. people analyzing democratic voting tallies.
OK, stay with me here: every political party looks at its demographic supporters, as well as demographics resistant to their platform. A few minutes of Googling should get you to any one of many projections of who will be voting for whom in the upcoming election. Or you can research past elections, like the two Obama won. They will tell you who voted, broken down by race and gender.
It may not fit your ideal of generalized “men and women”, but the campaigns can’t afford such blanket sanguinity, and frankly White men in this country can’t afford it either.
Now, Hillary panders to Negroes, Mexicans, and *women*.
Why, Corvinus, when the election will, according to you, just be men and women “making their own choices”? Why seek out certain groups and deliver a tailored message? Why? Especially since, as you correctly say, the voters are just “men and women”?
Because Hillary knows her campaign MUST get Negroes, Mexicans, and women to the polls for her. They understand demographics.
In the case of Europe, one need only know who Angela Merkel is to understand a bit about the crisis there.
Another good example: the recent election in Austria. Here’s an article that breaks down the voter demo:
http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/05/the-demographics-of-the-austrian-presidential-election/
And here is a quote:
“It is clear to see that women swung it for the Leftists in the Austrian election.”
Yes, you can certainly do a “Corvinus” and say, “no, men and women went to the polls and made their choices”.
It isn’t incorrect to do that, it is just disingenuous.
Also, please recall that female suffrage is a relatively recent event in the West. In America, we are not yet at the century mark anniversary. So, is it important to analyze the impact of female voters? Absolutely; it is a tool for understanding not just elections, but the voters-in this case women- themselves.
Unless- unless you wanted to argue that people’s choices don’t tell us anything about them; that group dynamics are useless in forming any opinion about a group as a whole. That if 99% of women voted one way, and 1% voted against that, that the only conclusion we can safely or even logically draw is that women believe a variety of different things-just like men.
And I can almost hear you making that very argument right now.
“Listen, and I will tell you. First, you have to back up, from the “restatement†of my argument as you rendered it above. You actually clouded the issue, by mixing in lots of factors, i.e. “political, economic, and socialâ€.â€
In these two specific events—current refugee levels in Europe and the election of Obama for two terms—you are emphasizing ONE factor, the decision making of women, as being THE compelling factor for a particular immigration policy being implemented and for a particular voter outcome. Rather than making an honest effort to take into account other considerations, carefully weigh them, and develop a conclusion based on that information gathered, you present information I already know that you assumed I had contested.
“Why, Corvinus, when the election will, according to you, just be men and women “making their own choicesâ€? Why seek out certain groups and deliver a tailored message? Why? Especially since, as you correctly say, the voters are just “men and womenâ€?â€â€¨â€¨
Because those men and women, despite being a member of several groups, each of which may have competing ideologies or positions, will make the individual choice as to which ideology or position they will support. Tailored messages serve as the rallying point for anticipated action by group members. The problem is that people who belong to several groups are bombarded by these “calls to actionâ€, and thus individually choose which one to accept and which one to ignore.
“Yes, you can certainly do a “Corvinus†and say, “no, men and women went to the polls and made their choices. It isn’t incorrect to do that, it is just disingenuous.â€
No, it is absolutely correct to say. You are attributing a honest assessment of the situation as being disingenuous.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
“Also, please recall that female suffrage is a relatively recent event in the West. In America, we are not yet at the century mark anniversary. So, is it important to analyze the impact of female voters? Absolutely; it is a tool for understanding not just elections, but the voters-in this case women- themselves.â€
Yes, understanding their decision making process, their agency as individuals and as a demographic.
“Unless- unless you wanted to argue that people’s choices don’t tell us anything about them; that group dynamics are useless in forming any opinion about a group as a whole. That if 99% of women voted one way, and 1% voted against that, that the only conclusion we can safely or even logically draw is that women believe a variety of different things-just like men.â€
Why would I make this argument? You are grasping at straws here.
Whenever someone says, “We need candidates with new ideas!”, I say, no we don’t. Only straight white men care about ideas; everyone else votes their identity, so ideas only serve to split the straight white male vote and ensure that they lose every election.
For elections to be based on ideas, one must first limit the franchise to straight white men.
“For the past thousands of years, men have been asking “What do women want?†Clearly it is a hard question without easy answers.â€â€¨â€¨For once, you make sense here.
“If women knew what they wanted, or if they acted competently and directly to get what they wanted, it would be an easy problem.â€
Again, YOU assume that women are absolutely incapable of understanding what they want and how to get it. YOU assume they are other than competent.
“Therefore women do not know what they want and do not act competently and directly to get it. In this sense, women lack agency, and cannot be allowed to make important decisions without male supervision and guidance.â€
You are a fascinating creature, Jim, in how you continue to double down time and time again by reiterating your arguments on false premises. There are serious mental health issues on your part.
“Also, therefore anyone who thinks that one can simply ask women what they want and get accurate information has not had much contact with women.â€
You sound like the adult in Charlie Brown, garbled in their speech and rationale.
Your experiences does not equate to universal truth.
“In these two specific events—current refugee levels in Europe and the election of Obama for two terms—you are emphasizing ONE factor, the decision making of women, as being THE compelling factor for a particular immigration policy being implemented and for a particular voter outcome.”
Because it is demonstrably true that the female demographic put these changes into action.
Because White male voting rights preceded female suffrage for many years, and was the societal norm, it is fair to analyze voting outcomes by asking “what did women vote for?” -which implies the question “what would have happened if women couldn’t vote?”.
We can clearly see that the female vote drives Leftist and Welfare Government victories. The reasons have been oft discussed, but the issue of unmarried mothers and a State-dependent mind-set are among the most important.
Having established this, it follows that the question of the soundness of female reasoning will arise. This is the crux of the importance of female agency- they are decisive in bestowing power to politicians and platforms.
Although you will argue till the cows come home that females have agency and that their deliberations are equal to, and as rational as men’s, that view is not universally held. I dare say it is in fact a minority view among readers of this blog. I would say that “feelings” certainly outweigh analysis in the feminine “decision making” realm. It is this way with the personal “decisions” women make, and it appears to hold in political matters.
We obviously aren’t going to sway you. And I can’t see a scenario where you convince us, especially since your arguments tend towards a “Your experience does not equate to universal truth” sort of “rebuttal”, backed up with personal attacks of the “must be a personal problem”, “there are serious mental issues on your part”-type.
J.R.M.,
“Corvinus” is somebody who objects to the use of the word “anti-white”, therfore he is not somebody who is honest by the standards of serious political dissidents…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
J.R.M.
“Because it is demonstrably true that the female demographic put these changes into action.”
That the female demographic IN PART put these changes in action is a more accurate statement.
“Because White male voting rights preceded female suffrage for many years, and was the societal norm, it is fair to analyze voting outcomes by asking “what did women vote for?†-which implies the question “what would have happened if women couldn’t vote?â€.”
I never said it was other than fair not to analyze the impact of the female vote.
“We can clearly see that the female vote drives Leftist and Welfare Government victories. The reasons have been oft discussed, but the issue of unmarried mothers and a State-dependent mind-set are among the most important.”
No, we can clearly see that females as one of several groups are factors for “liberal” candidates to win public office.
“Having established this, it follows that the question of the soundness of female reasoning will arise. This is the crux of the importance of female agency- they are decisive in bestowing power to politicians and platforms.”
Assuming that female reasoning in voting for “liberal” candidates is other than sound. You will also have to call into questioning the reasoning behind men who also support those politicians as well.
“Although you will argue till the cows come home that females have agency and that their deliberations are equal to, and as rational as men’s, that view is not universally held.”
It is held by the majority of people that women have agency. Certainly, the decision making processes of men and women are different, but both are capable of using reason to make their own choices, rather than be subject to your fascist attitudes that women ought not to vote, that women completely lack any agency, and that men must always guide women lest they make continued “bad choices”.
“I dare say it is in fact a minority view among readers of this blog. I would say that “feelings†certainly outweigh analysis in the feminine “decision making†realm. It is this way with the personal “decisions†women make, and it appears to hold in political matters.”
“And I can’t see a scenario where you convince us, especially since your arguments tend towards a “Your experience does not equate to universal truth†sort of “rebuttal”.
Exactly. Now you’re getting it sport. You offer broad generalizations and act as if they are 100% accurate.
The train is fine.
A.J.P.
““Corvinus†is somebody who objects to the use of the word “anti-whiteâ€, therfore he is not somebody who is honest by the standards of serious political dissidents…”
Anti-white cannot even be defined by objective measures. It is exclusively based on subjective standards.
>”I cannot define Anti-white by objective measures. My perceptions are exclusively based on the subjective validation of the signals i receive from my environment.”
The inability of solipsistic spergs to grasp reality beyond superficial, nominalistic levels is well documented, yes.
Smart ass, why don’t you offer a cogent definition of “anti-white”, replete with examples. You know, show us “solipsistic spergs” your version of reality.
Anti-White, noun, 1: human-like amphibious creature that says ‘what does ‘white person’ even really mean, anyways?’
“You offer broad generalizations and act as if they are 100% accurate.”
If X is true 70% of the time, and if betting on X (and !X) pays even money, the optimal strategy is to always bet on X. You would see this as “acting as if X is true 100% of the time.”
And no matter how much you whine that NAXALT and that you personally observed how this or that X wasn’t like that, the optimal betting strategy will still remain AXALT.
@Corvinus: “Exactly. Now you’re getting it sport. You offer broad generalizations and act as if they are 100% accurate.”
No, I propose general conclusions and believe they are substantially accurate. Please realize that even a 60% accuracy rate is still significant in most any question. Whereas, any conclusion that falls short of 100% application across the board is deemed essentially incorrect by you. Your arguments favor vagueness over specificity.
You in fact seem to be making a special pleading for greater vagueness in most of your posts, often concluding with something like “men and women”, as if it were a breakthrough moment, when in fact it is only the blandest of all possible positions.
Hence your counter-arguments tend towards stasis and entropy.
Example: “No, we can clearly see that females as one of several groups are factors for “liberal†candidates to win public office.”
This attempt at elision is problematic in terms of moving the conversation forward, to the extent that it obfuscates specialized information and tends to lump factors together into a mix of ingredients, essentially performing as the opposite of a robust level of differentiation.
Take your above example of “females as one of several groups”: let us suppose that a coalition of minorities, homosexuals, women, and government workers effect a Democratic victory. If we then choose to focus on the role of women in this outcome, we are choosing to analyze one important factor. It doesn’t mean we remain ignorant of the role played by other groups. It simply means we aren’t discussing them at the moment.
Your “counter-argument” that women were just one element only proposes that we take the question back up the chain, and appear to remove the opportunity for more detailed discussion.
By mixing all factors back into an argument that has focused on highlighting one factor, you simply take us back to a less specific state, as opposed to discussions that tend towards more conclusive positions.
Your position on women, with only minor changes in wording, could be used in every attempt to discuss specifically the interest groups named. At each turn, you would assert that others voted the same way, in an attempt to unburden the group being discussed of any real responsibility.
Your act is tedious and tiresome. You propose absolute conclusions and believe they are totally accurate, especially when it comes to the nature of women. Only your observations matter. To you, they are self-evident, and anyone who believes other than those observations has little or no clue about the female mind and how it operates.
“You in fact seem to be making a special pleading for greater vagueness in most of your posts, often concluding with something like “men and womenâ€, as if it were a breakthrough moment, when in fact it is only the blandest of all possible positions.â€

No, what I am doing breaking the matter down to its most simplistic, concise form. If you take it as being “blandâ€, that is your prerogative.
“This attempt at elision is problematic in terms of moving the conversation forward, to the extent that it obfuscates specialized information and tends to lump factors together into a mix of ingredients, essentially performing as the opposite of a robust level of differentiation.â€
There is no level of differentiation on your part. In order for you to move this “conversation†forward, one must admit that women lack agency. Once this “fact” has been put forth into evidence, then and only then, from your perspective, will there be substantive dialogue. Except this “fact” is merely based on generalizations and assumptions.
“Take your above example of “females as one of several groupsâ€: let us suppose that a coalition of minorities, homosexuals, women, and government workers effect a Democratic victory. If we then choose to focus on the role of women in this outcome, we are choosing to analyze one important factor. It doesn’t mean we remain ignorant of the role played by other groups. It simply means we aren’t discussing them at the moment.â€
If you are going to make the claim that women lack agency and are the primary reason why they ought not be involved in political decision making, then it is required on your part to compare their role with those other groups involved, rather than merely isolate that particular group and draw conclusions. Moreover, it is required to compare “western” men and women regarding the political, economic, and social “damage” caused by their choices in leaders.
The rest of your “argument” is just filler.
Hey Corvinus, what do you make of https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/christianwives4blackseed/
Men and womyn making their own sexual decisions for themselves, right?
@Corvinus: “Your act is tedious and tiresome.”
Yet, here you still are.
Corv: “You propose absolute conclusions and believe they are totally accurate”.
No; I cited an accuracy rate of 60% as significant and informative. Frankly, a 51% plurality is significant and demonstrative.
Corv: “If you are going to make the claim that women lack agency and are the primary reason why they ought not be involved in political decision making, then it is required on your part to compare their role with those other groups involved, rather than merely isolate that particular group”
OK: Negroes: Vote Left for Free Stuff, Gibs, and ‘dem Programs; Homosexuals: Vote Left for Anti-Traditional leaders and Protective Legislation.
Women: Vote Left for Governmental Safety Nets which cushion them from poor decision making; sympathy for anti-White minorities; Good “Feels” for being pro-Minority, pro-Promiscuity, pro-Vagina and anti-Straight White Male.
Government Workers: Vote Left for Job Security and Expanded Government.
I would expect you to counter that the list of reasons women vote Left actually prove that they DO have agency after all(!); in fact these reasons for voting Left all line up perfectly well under “performing as programmed by the Cathedral” and instinctive self-interest.
Corv: “Only your observations matter. To you, they are self-evident, and anyone who believes other than those observations has little or no clue about the female mind and how it operates.”
On the contrary, I would read with interest a compelling defense of the role women play in politics. I haven’t seen you offer anything more developed than “men do that too”. Your defense of women’s agency was “some men also lack agency”.
Feel free to quote your own incisive statements or theories of feminine value in political matters that you have made in the past. Maybe I missed your most eloquent paean to the Genius of Womankind.
All I’ve ever seen from you can be summarized thusly:
1. Not All Women Are Like That
2. Some Men Are Like That
3. Ad Hominem Attacks of the “You have mental problems”-type.
Corv: “You propose absolute conclusions and believe they are totally accurateâ€.
“No; I cited an accuracy rate of 60% as significant and informative. Frankly, a 51% plurality is significant and demonstrative.â€
Except you have yet to prove that your claim “all women lack agency” met that threshold. You simply state it as a fact that is obvious to everyone.
“OK: Negroes: Vote Left for Free Stuff, Gibs, and ‘dem Programs;
Homosexuals: Vote Left for Anti-Traditional leaders and Protective Legislation.
Women: Vote Left for Governmental Safety Nets which cushion them from poor decision making; sympathy for anti-White minorities; Good “Feels†for being pro-Minority, pro-Promiscuity, pro-Vagina and anti-Straight White Male.
Government Workers: Vote Left for Job Security and Expanded Government.â€


These are not “argumentsâ€. These are pandering statements saturated in rhetoric.
“I would expect you to counter that the list of reasons women vote Left actually prove that they DO have agency after all(!); in fact these reasons for voting Left all line up perfectly well under “performing as programmed by the Cathedral†and instinctive self-interest.â€
Now you are changing the goal posts. First, you stated women lack agency. Then you focused on how women vote for “leftists”. Now, you want me to defend how women who vote “left” have any agency.
YOU have to defend this claim–Women 100% of the time lack agency and thus require the guiding hand of men. GO!
“On the contrary, I would read with interest a compelling defense of the role women play in politics.”
Read up on Margaret Chase Smith, Barbara Jordan, and Margaret Thatcher, and get back to us.
All I’ve ever seen from you can be summarized thusly:
1. All Women Are Like That
2. Most Men Are Not Like That
3. I am under constant verbal attack.
@Corvinus: “Except you have yet to prove that your claim “all women lack agency†met that threshold.”
I am not obligated to defend a position I never took. You are the one who keeps saying “all women”; I keep saying “most women”. To give you the exact percentage would be impossible, and in fact would be in some state of flux, as women enter puberty, enter menopause, or die. When I say “most”, I mean a plurality, which I can’t prove anymore than you can disprove.
If you could disprove it, you would already have done so. You can differ with me – you do in every post.
You’ve assured us your experience is at drastic variance with our position; but you can’t prove most females are blessed with the same level of agency that is operative in most men.
@Corvinus: “Now you are changing the goal posts. First, you stated women lack agency. Then you focused on how women vote for “leftistsâ€. Now, you want me to defend how women who vote “left†have any agency.”
Women’s lack of agency is an interesting topic, but for me the importance of it applies to politics. I believe women are primarily emotional decision makers. I believe the Left appeals to this emotion with propaganda like Syrian Ambulance Boy.
Perhaps you would like to argue that women are just as logical as men in their political decision making. Fine, by all means go ahead. But saying that the burden is on me to prove they aren’t isn’t creating much gravitas around you.
What can you say in a positive manner that will give us pause, and lead us to consider that you may be on to something? If you don’t expect to convince anyone, why continue the argument ad nauseam? I’m fine with saying we agree to disagree, and move on. If you aren’t, how do you want to convince me you’re right?
Here is a challenge: take any election you choose, one in which sufficient data exists for comparisons, and tell us the party who won the largest number of female votes. The younger the compliment of women voters the better, for reasons already stated.
Show us reproductive age females making good decisions politically. Then enumerate the aspects of the vote that you think best illustrates agency, logic, and political acumen. If their side won, share the achievements. If their side lost, share the missed opportunity.
It’s not that hard, and the older the results, the better the chances you have for a sensible outcome, because the older the results, the more likely the women were voting as their Husbands or Fathers instructed them. But to really dazzle us, pick something recent, show us the female plurality, and tell us the happy outcome.
@Corv: “YOU have to defend this claim–Women 100% of the time lack agency and thus require the guiding hand of men. GO!”
Again, not my argument. I never said 100%.
“Read up on Margaret Chase Smith, Barbara Jordan, and Margaret Thatcher, and get back to us.”
You left out Mary Wollstonecraft. There are exceptions. But you know that old saying about exceptions: they prove the rule.
Another factor is one which I’ve observed in women, namely that after the fact, the smarter ones are able to construct, in retrospect, reasonable trains of logic and purposeful thinking which can be presented by them as more or less reasonable guidelines to their previous actions.
This, usually, under the pressure of a male who demands to know the why and wherefore of their behavior. When it happens, it is merely the overlay of a foreign (male) logic pattern over their emotionally-driven behavior. During this “explaining” process, women are very likely to be agitated, displeased, and uncertain, and are sometimes as awkward as a man walking in high-heels would be.
Having said that, a surprisingly large number of even above-average intelligence women will be unable to clearly annunciate their motivations, which often remain a mystery even to themselves.
Again, my claim never was that 100% of all women lack agency or valid political ideas. There are certainly times of life (primarily post-menopausal) that are more conducive to agency in females.
“I am not obligated to defend a position I never took. You are the one who keeps saying “all womenâ€; I keep saying “most women—.
Like a bobble head doll, you had consistently agreed with Jim’s assessment that all women lacked agency. Now you changed the goalposts once again.
“To give you the exact percentage would be impossible, and in fact would be in some state of flux, as women enter puberty, enter menopause, or die.”
Assuming that those factors are indeed exclusively attributable to why all women lack agency.
“When I say “mostâ€, I mean a plurality, which I can’t prove anymore than you can disprove.”
Exactly.
“You’ve assured us your experience is at drastic variance with our position; but you can’t prove most females are blessed with the same level of agency that is operative in most men.”
You have yet to prove this claim. The only evidence you have offered is YOUR experience, which is rife with confirmation bias and subjectivity.
“Women’s lack of agency is an interesting topic, but for me the importance of it applies to politics. I believe women are primarily emotional decision makers. I believe the Left appeals to this emotion with propaganda like Syrian Ambulance Boy.”
When you neglect to add the qualifier “most” before “women”, you indicate to the reader that, in essence, in ALL cases it is the norm.
“Perhaps you would like to argue that women are just as logical as men in their political decision making. Fine, by all means go ahead. But saying that the burden is on me to prove they aren’t isn’t creating much gravitas around you.”
The burden from the start has been on you, not me.
“Another factor is one which I’ve observed in women, namely that after the fact, the smarter ones are able to construct, in retrospect, reasonable trains of logic and purposeful thinking which can be presented by them as more or less reasonable guidelines to their previous actions. This, usually, under the pressure of a male who demands to know the why and wherefore of their behavior.”:
“Having said that, a surprisingly large number of even above-average intelligence women will be unable to clearly annunciate their motivations, which often remain a mystery even to themselves.”
You’re pulling a Jim here. Your generalization based on observation and experience does not equate to a universal truth. How would you define “clearly”? How would YOU able to tell that they are indeed lack the capability to elucidate their drives and aspirations?
“There are certainly times of life (primarily post-menopausal) that are more conducive to agency in females.”
Another classic Jim move here. You have yet to prove this point, yet submit it as being entirely true.
I’m going to take that last post of yours as an open confession of failure to bring any convincing arguments to bear on these issues.
When challenged to back up your contention that all or most women of any age group possess agency, you repeatedly assert that there is no burden of proof, but that contending the contrary does require proof.
At least I admit that by your parameters- i.e. every member of the group must fit the description, and this could only be proven by knowing every member personally, or a generalization cannot be made- that NEITHER of us can “prove” or “win” this argument.
Unlike jim and others here, you don’t even offer anything positive. You just ask for proof, which would consist of God knows what, maybe signed confessions from every woman alive stating unequivocally that she possessed no agency- which you would then dismiss as self-contradiction and actually proving your point, since the signing of their name was proof of agency!
You repeat like a broken record “no proof-no proof” to any observation. But you don’t seem to really enjoy the nuances of debate. If you did I think you’d be moved to make more tangible contributions. Simply saying “no” to every point and refusing to accede any points unless every member of a group being discussed is accounted for.
It would be like my saying “niggers tend to be criminals”. Most people would know I meant many mostly male blacks of mostly an age in their teens through 30s.
You could say “It’s not true because I knew an African American who wasn’t a criminal”. And that would truly be enough, by your standards, to disprove my statement. No need for any messy ruminations about crime statistics or the history of the inner-cities since the 1950s. That would require thought and maybe even observation. It might require marshalling your best evidence. Probably too much trouble. Just keep saying “no it isn’t”; “no it doesn’t”, and “not all members of a subset”.
If you aren’t here to convince anyone of the truth of your viewpoint, why do you visit this blog? I imagine a better place for you to spend your online time could be located practically at random. Maybe you should look at more porn…
It’s a shame because your personal stories of how the women you have known have indelibly impressed you with their good sense and smart decision-making might have made great reading, and might even have softened some hardened positions here. A lost opportunity to champion the fair sex, as you were a poor substitute for a real White Knight, I’m afraid.
Then again, I was probably the only one reading your responses. At least that condition has been remedied- now I’m out as well.
Okay….I know you NEED to have the last word, even in an empty room…the floor is now yours….ready……set…..GO:
[…] another brief scientific note from Jim: Women prefer men with the stones to rape them—at least in principle if not always in actual […]