Both Vox and Adam posted interesting views of women and their concept of love.
There was also a marathon length thread on SG that happened as a result of Vox’s post.
The view that is quoted as Florence Nightingale’s writing, is, in my view, the most accurate.
One of the SGers also made a very pertinent comment:
Women are pragmatic while pretending to be romantic. Men are romantic pretending to be pragmatic.
Again, I would say that is most accurate.
As for my own views, like my views of the socio-sexual hierarchy that I developed long before I came across Vox’s far more detailed one, they are relatively simple.
Which is not to say that they are shallow or lack complexity, because they have plenty of depth and perception of myriad factors; it’s just that over my now more than five decades on this Earth, I have reduced those factors to what works for me. And possibly only me. So I am not sure how useful my views will be to anyone else.
That said, maybe some young man at the early stages of his unknowingly sigma grindset, or scout life, as I refer to it, might appreciate my perspective. Most everyone else will assume I am just a terrible, terrible, evil, misogynyst pig.
Fortunately, I learnt to not care at all what mental defectives and idiots think about me —or pretty much anything else— a very long time ago. Which means you now get my unfiltered opinions, with, however, a few —and I stress few— relevant corollaries, to help the not quite complete morons to have a slightly better grasp of my “misogynistic piggery” and understand, at least from their limited perceptive ability, that I am at the very least a noble misogynist pig. And if anyone here actually realises the intent here is purely objective observation, well, buy yourself a drink.
Perhaps the best way to let you perceive the complexity is to simply juxtapose some of my beliefs (which are generic, and statistically very highly correlative with reality but never absolute), and let you try and understand in your own way, how I can hold seemingly opposite beliefs, with equal strength. Because I do. None of this is some “trick” to appear smarter or more mysterious or to confuse etc.
In fact, one of my life’s frustrations is that I often find it difficult to make things that are simple to me, equally simple to others.
Anyway, here we go. The – indicate what most will assume is a “negative” observation/attribute, and the + what most will assume is a “positive” observation/attribute.
I include those signals in order to facilitate the understanding of my approach for some, in reality, these are just my personal statistically very strongly valid observations and thus conclusions over time, and have no value in themselves that is either positive or negative.
– women, are not too dissimilar to dogs, in that the tone of voice in which you deliver a message is far more important/relevant/likely to get the desired behaviour out of them, than the informational content of the actual message, which is almost entirely ignored in pretty much almost all cases.
+ as a man, you should endeavour to make your tone, pleasant, encouraging, and inspiring to them. Highlight the positives and minimise the negatives. So… “Darling, you cleaned the kitchen AS you cooked today, that’s awesome!” or, better yet, “Oh, sweetheart, I can see you’re a bit flustered today, here, let me do the cleaning as you go this time and give you a hand! (Smile) this way it is easier to keep it all neater and already sorted than if we left it all a mess till the end. It’s funny, you know, it took me ages to learn that most simple trick that all women that can cook already know from childhood! Silly me!”
Both will work a LOT better than: “Goddamn it! This counter is a pigsty that makes the stables Hercules cleaned out look like child’s play! Homeless people are neater in their cardboard boxes!”
[Note: just because I know these things and they are beneficial to more than 95% of men, it doesn’t mean I specifically do these myself, the reason is personal, obstinate and counter-productive for almost all men and almost entirely all women, but then… there are levels of Sigma grindsets even most sigmas dread to face. They are the smarter ones than me, but if anyone can get the females of the species to evolve so we can breed logical amazons and heroic men, well, it will be my Asperger-riddled genes, you’ll have to thanks, you weaker cowards!]
– women are almost entirely incapable of dialectic thought processes relating to abstract thought of conceptual ideas and so on. They are essentially limited to dialectic learnt by rote as either social convention, basic mathematical computation, or (more rarely) hard-bitten learnt experience. Please keep in mind that any dialectic they are able to do as a result of experience is almost always not actual dialectic, just a “learnt by rote” approximation of it. So if they had experience X with 10 men they will assume experience X applies to all men. The idea that perhaps it only applies to the type of men they are specifically attracted to only, will almost never enter their head in a serious fashion. Nor will the idea to observe the world at large in order to verify their idea, because the world at large didn’t happen specifically to them, so it doesn’t really exist for them. At all. They may pretend it does and make noises saying they are aware of it and consider it. It’s lies and nonsense. If it does not directly affect her specifically it’s just vapour in the clouds to her.
+ given the above, long term projects, future plans for securing the inheritance of your children, your stockpiling of gold, ammunition, tinned food and building a bunker for the coming economic collapse, your “golfing” weekends that are really cover for your getting together a group to fund an actual real Catholic priest and build a real Catholic church, are best kept to yourself or presented as fleeting shiny objects. That make them look good socially. Male friends can share your heartache at your hopes being crushed and rejoice in your persevering despite it. Women don’t give a shit about your ideas on how to regain antigravity technology, stopping cancer, or even just noting a character trait in your son that needs working on if you’re to keep him out of trouble later in life. They can pretend to care. But they don’t. If you do succeed at curing cancer they will be very proud and happy and take credit for always believing in you through the hard times. Do not bring up the fact the hard times were made 10 times worse by their nagging, complaining and general shittiness towards you during said hard times.
– women care more about social status than probably having all of their limbs. Hey, you can be a classy, brave, and stunning lady with only one leg or one arm. But having the village think you’re a slut or dress badly or are a sub-par mother, well… their husband better burn that village to the ground before they move.
+ women are right to be like that about social status. And as a man you should be willing to burn that village down in order to protect hers. Easier to do when you’re a natural alpha instead of a hardcore sigma that think being on the FBI’s most wanted list for torching villages can get you discounts at the local gun shop, so it evens out.
– women’s emotions and hormones make them unable to have the same level of logic that a man can have.
+ those hormones and emotions are how the human species survived long enough to make YOU. So, despite the fact that most women have the empathy of a crocodile or the scorpion in the frog and scorpion story, be grateful it was this way. And work gently and patiently towards helping them evolve a few more logic and reason neurones.
+ if you learn to control your trigger points when a/the/all women are using a jackhammer to ram at it, you will have become a much better man in almost every way. Control of your own emotions is pivotal for the achievement of everything good that originates with being male. And we literally built the entirety of civilisation, regardless of what culture, ethnicity, or religion, it has always been men that built it. And pretty much always will be.
+ when/if a woman has the ability to have any level of introspective, objective, self-criticism that is not mere sympathy hunting, but results in actual learning and positive change of her behaviour, marry her and make as many children with her as you can. Eugenics is a thing, and we need more slightly autistic females for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
+ women can and often do have an eye for “superficial” beauty. That “superficial” level of beauty is far more important to your sanity, peace and serenity than you realise. This is especially true when her sense of beauty is instinctive and natural and not the result of trying to copy the latest house and home magazine spread or kardashian “fashion” sense.
– women are almost entirely incapable of having the ability to envision successful visionary projects. In fact, they struggle imagining a potential house they might purchase as liveable if it has the wrong colour paint on the walls. Even after you suggest that the walls can be painted her favourite colour.
+ they will likely remember your hip flask, the kids’ spare socks, the small tool you use to open that irksome toy that the kids love and you hate for the noise it makes. And she will have remembered the spare batteries for it too.
– women are wholly incapable at a biological level to live by, understand, or have, the concept of honour, honesty, duty and self-sacrifice in the way a man can and should have those things. any man that expects any of these things from a woman as he would expect them from a man is setting himself up for a massive amount of pain, up to, and including possibly suicide and/or murder. This is really important for men to understand in order to avoid such unnecessary emotional and potentially even physical harm to all concerned. A woman’s concept of honour, courage, honesty, duty and self-sacrifice is flexible and situational. A man’s is (or should be, if he’s worthy of the label “man”) inflexible and absolute. Which is not to say rigid or binary. See 3D thinking.
• (not – or + even for normies, just is): women are ruled by their genitals far more than men. Make a woman orgasm five times in a row and squirt for the first time in her life and over 95% of them will now believe they are absolutely in love with you. And are more likely to get pregnant because of it. Deceitfully, intentionally, unintentionally, unconsciously… eh… they are just words. By contrast, when/if they get used to/are already familiar with multiple orgasms on a regular basis, then, they can be far more sexually mercenary than men. Which is why women with a high body count struggle to feel what they think is love (but is really hormonally generated, reproductive inducing, lust). A woman capable of choosing love consciously, the way a man is capable of, instead of believing it is a feeling ordained by chance, planetary alignment and astrological compatibility, alone, is rare indeed, if she even exists.
• they are the “weaker” sex because they are:
– physically weaker
– morally weaker
– less capable with logic and reason
And therefore…
– more liable to be coldly calculating, murderous, narcissistically selfish, abusive, shrew-like, self-serving, deceitful and hypocritical in the extreme. Which, paradoxically makes them far more dangerous than men in the context of causing emotional/psychological harm. A man might ultimately only kill you. It takes a woman to really scar someone for life emotionally.
+ their chaotic, unpredictable, hormonal nature, if understood, curated, and appreciated, can be the source of unimagined beauty, entertainment and joy.
+ an instinctively very feminine woman that has survived the modern world is essentially about as coherent as an escaped mental patient. And yet… if you can survive her (and it’s a big if) and help her tame her demons (which has a success rate of precisely zero for pretty much all men who are not actually sigmas, and about 1% success rate for them), she will basically be like a 1950’s pulp fiction heroine, think Jane to Tarzan, Dejah Thoris to John Carter of Mars, or Sarah to Jake’s Tales of the Gold Monkey. It’s what all those mythologies are based on. As with all myths and legends, they are based in real events. And almost all fools who try to live that truth will die horribly. Still… some of us, too dense and stupid to die like normal men, get really lucky. And no, I really am not humble-bragging. I honestly am advising you to not try to find such a creature and to then “make it work” or “fix her”. Pretty much any man in the history of humanity that has ended up with such a story and such a woman, and ended up with a happy ending, got there by the chance survival of the entertainment of the old gods (demons), Divine Grace beyond any reasonable expectations, including miracles, a cohort of archangels protecting him constantly to his eternal obliviousness, and got there against his own human reason and principles. To a certain extent, if you boil this extreme example of peak emotional femininity, and peak passionate masculinity, and reduce the intensity by several orders of magnitude, it still remains a reflection of the whole dance between a man and a woman.
It is the stuff of dreams and legends, and tragedy and terror, of joy beyond imagining, of pain beyond enduring, of life, and love, that is —as much in this fallen world is— too often brutal and sad and wasteful and harmful and broken, but too, if you manage to find the switch, the way, the sight to see what others miss, it is the stuff of music and poetry and beauty that lifts all tears and makes them clouds over the mountains, the drizzle that opens the valley of the flowers, hidden beyond the waterfall.
It is also a kind of truth, that the woman that can and does and will match you as a man, that is best for you, is the one that will force you to evolve too, even as you do to to her. And if you can both learn to choose it, instead of suffer it, you might actually stand a chance to make it not just work, but be awesome. Reading my theory of boxes here may help.
V interesting. This is a never-ending learning process, in my experience.
Re “women are almost entirely incapable of dialectic thought processes relating to abstract thought of conceptual ideas and so on. They are essentially limited to dialectic learnt by rote”… I have many women in my academic writing classes, but was starting to think teaching them this (which I break down as being essentially the trivium), is a waste of time and effort. Misdirected energy. Perhaps it was ignorant men who came up with this curriculum I must use, merely propagating what they were taught, perhaps in their all-male schools, without considering male-female differences.
In addition, these are Asian women, so the consensus-focus would doubly apply. (“Female groups all revert to collective opinions” – Owen Benjamin, Twitter; “People who can’t defend themselves physically (women and low T-men) parse information through a consensus filter as a safety mechanism. They literally do not ask “is this true?”, they ask “will others be ok with me if I think this is true?”)
In “Somewhither”, the narrator at one (rather dark) point mentions the difference between men and women in how they view marriage and weddings: “women want romance and adventure” he said.
So maybe I should abandon all attempts to teach logic and rhetoric and show romantic comedy movies?!?
An academic writing class, especially today, hardly needs rigorous logic. But in any case, the steps required for academic writing can be taught to women pretty much the same way a times table is taught.
Follow the steps on this list and
Memorise the list.
Nara,
I also teach academic writing (and the Trivium) and can confirm what G says is true overall. Once you apply a system, it is easy for women to follow. What I have noticed is that, although a woman can produce a chain of dialectic or learn one, it doesn’t have the same effect on her mind as it does on a man.
As a general rule, if the chain of dialectic aligns with the woman’s emotions, it will be accepted as self-evident. If not, it will be rejected by the mind, even if lip-service is given to its validity. Even if it is nonsensical, if her emotions are invested in it enough she will use every avenue of “reasoning” to justify it.
It’s not so much that women are devoid of logic, more that they use logic retroactively.
Also, I’m interested: how/where do you teach?
Best,
T
Hi, Tony, I teach academic writing to EFL college students in Japan and 90% are women. I agree that academic writing has become a writing-by-numbers, dumbed down activity, but teaching that doesn’t interest me, nor does it help young people develop critical or independent thinking, especially when assessing sources of information. (Plus the official rationale for the course is to prep students for the option to write a graduation thesis in English. Only 1% take that option, but I want to give the 99% something useful.)
If you have a system that works for young women and is fun, interesting and practically useful, then I’m interested. Thanks for replying. (PS Bought your Trivium course a couple years back; it filled in some gaps.)
Japanese women score considerably higher on standardised IQ tests than European women. So, there is that too to consider.
Bravo.
CIII
Adam’s link goes to Vox’s blog.
Thanks. Corrected.
haha, academic writing by numbers! The trivium? Never heard of it. I’ll just give up.
Typical woman response. The trivium is one of the things taught at Kurgan TV by Tony, so I am perfectly familiar with it. Academic writing has ALWAYS been pretty much by numbers and in modern day those numbers are probably counted off on one hand whilst drooling. What you do is not rocket science, dear, nor that important in the scheme of things, especially if — while teaching the trivium— you find yourself asking such a question to begin with! Bit of a terminal case of “teacher, teach yourself” you’re having there.
“Women are pragmatic while pretending to be romantic. Men are romantic pretending to be pragmatic.”
Sure, but as with everything else, women are completely incapable of doing something, without some heavy duty rationalization. Therefore I’d go with women’s romanticism is rationalized pragmatism. It’s possible, not that uncommon when they find a suitable man, and I don’t think they are pretending. It just stems from a different place.