Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue with Women

Dominating Clock -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D.

This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.

Men and women are after different things when they “debate.”

Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission. The truth matters not a bit to women.

"If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling. Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself. A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, "monstre incompréhensible,'' raised to the second power, she is at once the delight and the terror of men." -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, Dec. 26, 1868

Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once:

Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.

But women?

Not so much.

However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.

Social Strategy.

That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.

Socially manipulating people is what women do.

In fact, it is one of the only things they do.

"Truth" as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are "herd creatures" and thus women find "truth" or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd. It is what the herd believes is correct that women believe is "truth." Thus you see women are much more attuned to eternally changing notions such as fashion, or how they use social proofing - the consensus of whom the herd finds a sexually desirable man - to decide for their individual selves which man they find sexy. Men simply "know" what they find sexy in a mate, but women find men sexy because of other women's sexual preferences.

"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

When women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other(s) into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct - because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct - because the herd believes it is so. It is men who insist upon the objective truth - based on principle and universality - and continue to argue 1+1=2, no matter how much you cows moo at me. Women are not after finding the correct answer, but rather they are after manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, they are socially manipulating their opponent when they argue, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth.

I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. “A woman is the most responsible teenager in the house.”

Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from game to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.

This does not mean a man can be foolish and disregard women as harmless children, for as Schopenhauer observes, women are naturally furnished with the tools of dissimulation - the behaviours akin to a pool hustler - and this feature is innate in women and is found as easily in the stupid as well as the very clever. Men should be very guarded when in an argument with someone who naturally dissembles.

"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851

I can well understand why in the old days, when there were such things as "gentleman's clubs," that even all of the staff were male. Once a woman enters into group of men, the group automatically becomes feminized. It also makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines and they state that women are not allowed to speak in the church nor hold office or authority over men. They naturally lead away from the Truth. Just because a woman says something that makes sense once, is no guarantee that the next thing out of her mouth also makes sense... and they all, by human nature, put the female's needs before the male, and manipulate away from the Truth with the ease, taking men along with them like the Pied Piper. Buddhism also says that women cannot become Buddhas for much the same reasons.

When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.

Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.

Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”

Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”

You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.

"...it is just such responses — citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to “refute” a carefully made argument — that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, “Never argue with a woman.” Because women don’t ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth — as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge (a.k.a. “change the subject”) — but merely to “win.” And “all’s fair in war and love.” “Love” here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and “all’s fair” because that’s how women fight" -- Philalethes #8 - When the Cow Rides the Bull, Priest, Watch Your Skull.

And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature any more than it does good to convince three year olds that Ron Paul is the right candidate for President.

Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?

There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway. "Phew!"

However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.

“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”

Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who pedestalized her. She was no different than the rest and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she was in life.

Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21, who screwed you over at 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “empty vessels” who seek men to fill the void. Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one then ever assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.

There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.Having a woman "help" with Men's Issues is like having a five year old "help" you put up wallpaper. No thanks!

"...the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy." -- The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval, but deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.

We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Bonecrcker #51 - Don't Argue with Women

Zenpriest #50 - Listening to What Men Really Say 

Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)

Wisdom and the Weather -- by G.K. Chesterton

Point, Counterpoint – Rollo Tomassi

- For woman the temptation to misuse cunning (for example, to deceive) corresponds to man's temptation to misuse power.  The fact that the woman's guilt is always more strongly emphasized than the man's is basically an indirect compliment to the woman, an admission of the degree to which she is the stronger sex in cunning. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals

- The consciousness of how one stands with other people occupies a relatively larger and larger part of the mind, the lower one goes on the scale of culture.  Woman's intuition, so fine in the sphere of personal relations, is seldom first-rate in the way of mechanics.  Hence Dr.  Whately's jest, "Woman is the unreasoning animal, and pokes the fire from the top." -- William James, Principles of Psychology

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

The Fish and the Bicycle

”The most insidious effect of affirmative action quotas is a kind of psychic castration… the removal of the source of a man’s identity. By contriving the nonsense that women can do whatever a man can do (which they obviously can’t), they’ve leveled men’s purpose to the extent that men effectively have no purpose. The equivalent would be to remove women’s wombs, and render them sterile.

It’s not just messing with the laws of supply and demand and cheating men out of their rights… its about annihilation of identity and purpose.” -- codebuster, from a comment at The Spearhead


”I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.” -- zenpriest, Hate Bounces


”The problem here is women are totally lying about wanting to be empowered. To have power, one must have independence and be self-reliant. This is the exact opposite of what women and children have been for most of human history. Instead of being independent and self-reliant (ie having power) they have been dependent and relied on men for everything. In return, there is a bunch of stuff they are expected to give men…..certain roles they must perform for the system to work.

Now, a handful of women have always been an exception. I can totally see how more women would want to have power by becoming self-reliant and independent. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Instead, they want to be empowered but still rely and depend on men for everything. They think they can do this by creating various ways and means to force us to take care of them, both as individuals and a society, without giving anything in return. They don’t want marriage but they still want money from men via alimony and child support. They want to vote but don’t exercise wisdom in what they vote for. They want jobs but are pathetic as employees, but God forbid you fire them, you’ll get sued (plus they will trade sex for promotions).” -- Bonecrcker #78 – Women Are Lying About Wanting To Be Empowered


"...Traditionally, the raw sexual and economic facts of marriage have been politely concealed by superadded ideas such as romantic love and gallantry. In the years following the Second World War, such antiquated fashions were with increasing rudeness torn from the sexual act by fraudulent sex "scientists" and pornographers. But the economic realities have not similarly been dragged into the light of day. On the contrary, our prosperity has made it easy to downplay them even more than in the past.

An example of such polite concealment is found in the traditional etiquette with respect to greeting newly married couples. It was customary to say "congratulations" to the man, but never to the woman; to the bride one offered only "best wishes." The pretense was that the man was receiving an unmerited windfall. The reality, of course, is that the man assumes the principal burden in marriage. For women, it is an economic bonanza.

One factor in the disintegration of marriage and sex roles is that, spoiled by prosperity, women actually came to believe the chivalrous pretense and forgot the underlying economic reality. They expect men to be grateful for the opportunity to support them. ... It is a case of gallantry being abused by its beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, men cannot simply go on behaving in the old manner as though nothing were wrong. It is incumbent upon them to fight back against the forces arrayed against them, in part by emphasizing some home truths about the economic realities of marriage. Perhaps it is time for young men to stop paying for dates and coyly explain that they are "saving their wallets" for marriage. If that sounds cynical to a traditional sensibility, my answer is that such cynicism may simply be the price for reestablishing the natural family as the basis of our civilization." -- F. Roger Devlin, Home Economics II

”In truth, women are no more “independent” than they ever were, but because they’ve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as “independent” as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that’s changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we’re not harmless.” -- Philalethes #27 – In the Battle of the Sexes, If She Wins, She Loses


”Women only have what rights we give them. The real core of the problem with women is other men. The men who open their wallets in a snivelling desire to get laid. The men who pass foolish draconian laws to solve problems that don’t exist. The men who promote women in return for sexual favours. The men who marry obviously inferior women. And most of all, the men who swallow the most outrageous of lies, rather than bother to think critically about what is happening both to them and everyone around them.

The bottom line is women have no real power, no intrinsic power. They are totally, completely and permanently dependant on men for power. This situation is deeply rooted in our biology and not going to change because some wacko broads think it should. We created this hobgoblin ourselves, feed it and keep it alive despite its obviously odious nature. The very moment we stop, it will evaporate in a puff of smoke. Women know this. Their biggest fear is we will wake up and know it too. -- Bonecrcker #121 – Women Only Have What Rights Men Give Them


”…there is no equity between the sexes. They are indispensable one to another, but one is the leader and the other led. The ram is the master of the ewe; the reverse would be an aberration and monstrosity. The pride of the American women will bring about a reaction; for whatever these ladies are they owe to man. If the latter wearies of his generosity and leaves them to their own merits, the expiatory plunge will oblige them to measure the immensity of their ingratitude.

Nature has willed the subordination of woman. Civilized man dignifies his companion, submits willingly to grace, sweetness, frailty, creates for her the right to protection, gives her a privileged place. But the condition is such that, if she denies the bene- faction and claims to have earned what has been given to her and to be indebted to no one, her benefactor may bring this course to an abrupt end.

The illusion consists in this: superiority constitutes a moral duty on the part of the superior towards the inferior, but inferiority does not constitute any legal right on the part of the inferior over the superior. Generosity is beautiful and noble, but it is optional; the cripple who demands that he should he carried dispels one's desire to aid him. Man enjoys protecting woman, but when woman imperatively summons him to serve and protect her, he whom an entreaty would have softened loses his inclination at once.

By substituting the legal sphere for the moral sphere, the emancipation of women will desiccate society, as legal charity destroys real charity, as love by command would sterilise the marriage-bed. --In asking more than civil equality and economic equality, women are playing a dangerous game. Equality in services will be demanded of them, and this will serve them right.” -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, August 8, 1876


"...That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest." -- Arthur Schopenhauer - On Women (1851)

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House

.
NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version (it hasn't changed much) or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.
.

***

At first it may seem like an assault against your good senses to think of adult women as mere children or teenagers. How could they be? They go through life and mature just like men do, don’t they? Once they are thirty or forty, don’t they behave as adults just as thirty or forty year old men do? Actually, there is much evidence to the contrary. Perhaps men are so keen to believe that women mature the same as them (throughout their entire lives) because in the early stages of our lives, females do actually mature faster than males.

”The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight and twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is a reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling things to the most important.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)

The reason why females mature faster than men is not some particular triumph for them, despite how women seem to enjoy throwing this little tidbit of information around. As I described in my piece "You're Such a Tool", what it really has to do with is women being the biological bearers and caretakers of children. They mature faster than males because once they become fertile after puberty, they must also have the mental capacity to care for the children they might bear. Nowhere in nature is there a female organism that is capable of giving birth to offspring which is not also developed enough yet to care for the offspring. This not only manifests itself in hips capable of giving birth and breasts able to produce milk, but also in a mental maturation that enables them to provide basic childcare. You will notice as well, even in our present society, it is when girls reach around the age of twelve that they begin taking up babysitting and it is around puberty when adults begin entrusting young girls to care for infants alone. This merely coincides with female biology, as it is also at that age when girls become physically capable of bearing children, and their mental maturity matches their biological maturity.

The difference between men and women in maturity, however, is that while females mature earlier in life, they also stop maturing at around the age of eighteen, as Schopenhauer aptly observes. And while men don’t catch up to women’s maturity until they reach around age twenty-eight, after that the men keep maturing - often throughout their entire lives. William James describes the same process of maturation in Principles of Psychology, where he states:

"We observe an identical difference between men as a whole and women as a whole.  A young woman of twenty reacts with intuitive promptitude and security in all the usual circumstances in which she may be placed.  Her likes and dislikes are formed; her opinions, to a great extent, the same that they will be through life.  Her character is, in fact, finished in its essentials.  How inferior to her is a boy of twenty in all these respects!  His character is still gelatinous, uncertain what shape to assume, "trying it on" in every direction.  Feeling his power, yet ignorant of the manner in which he shall express it, he is, when compared with his sister, a being of no definite contour.  But this absence of prompt tendency in his brain to set into particular modes is the very condition which insures that it shall ultimately become so much more efficient than the woman's.  The very lack of preappointed trains of thought is the ground on which general principles and heads of classification grow up; and the masculine brain deals with new and complex matter indirectly by means of these, in a manner which the feminine method of direct intuition, admirably and rapidly as it performs within its limits, can vainly hope to cope with." -- William James, Principles of Psychology

It becomes like comparing three-month fermented wine served in a box of Chateau Cardboard to single malt scotch aged for decades in an oak cask. As such, women do mature faster than males but stop maturing at around the mentality of an eighteen year old (or also, I suppose, to the maturity of a 28 year old man), leaving the woman as literally, the most responsible teenager in the house. It is interesting to note as well how many men claim that it is at around age 27 or 28 that they begin to “figure things out” in regard to women, or at least much more so than they did earlier in life.

”Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, and foolish, and shortsighted – in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strictest sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best of intentions, could do in her place.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)

The reason why women stop maturing at around the age of eighteen also has to do with their biological destiny as child-bearers and caretakers of children. As Schopenhauer notes, women can toy and coo with a child all day long and seemingly enjoy themselves, while what could a man do in their place? Women, as they are wont to brag to us, are also more “emotionally tuned-in” than men are. Women’s emotional proclivities are directly related to her childrearing duties which biology has assigned to her. Babies, for example, communicate solely through emotion and even as children grow into toddlers and then children that communicate with words and language, a lot of their communication is still through emotion, and so women are at an intermediate stage of development between that of a child and an adult man, or in other words, they are teenagers.

Furthermore, in regard to women’s emotional state, it ought to be noted that one cannot be emotional and rational at the same time, so it is not that females are both more emotionally in-tune while remaining rationally above it all. Just the opposite is true. The more you “emote,” the less you “think.” Take someone suffering from road-rage, for example. The emotions of anger so cloud the driver’s brain that he can even unthinkingly commit acts of violence, only to deeply regret it later when his emotions have subsided. As women are generally in a much more emotional state of mind than men, so do they not use reason and rationality to guide themselves as much as men do.

***NOTE: There is an addition to this article at the bottom of the page.***
.  
What’s Mine is Mine and What’s Yours is Ours

What husband doesn’t come to understand this is the true nature of marriage after a time? But ultimately, is this not merely the same attitude that teenagers take within the family?

 

Think about how a teenager refers to the family sedan, which the parents paid for, as our car. But the i-pod which he purchased with money he earned part-time at McDonald's is his i-pod. Is not the teenager’s/child’s default that his parent’s possessions are “ours” while those possessions he purchased with money he earned himself are “his,” and his alone? This directly mimics even my own parent’s marriage, where my father worked his entire lifetime to pay the bills for the family and put a roof over our heads, but when the kids were off to school and my mom took up working, the money she earned doing so was “her money.” It did not go into the family pot as my father’s income did, but became her own “special money” in almost the same way that a child’s allowance or earnings are “his money.”

(Right Now I Feel Like)...

Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind…” This is something we usually write off as a cute quirk of female behaviour (even though it often causes untold damage to others), but think for a moment how this resembles the behaviour of children & teenagers. Ask a child what they want to be when they grow up and they will tell you “a fireman,” then ask them a week later and they will say “an astronaut.” Young people will do this right through high-school and on into university where they almost assuredly will change their major at least once, not to mention that after getting their degree, the odds are there will be more changes in their plans once again.

If I were a parent who had a teenager that told me they wanted to be a doctor in the future, I would do well to insert the phrase “Right now I feel like (I want to be a doctor),” in front of every choice the teenager has claimed they made. Certainly, I wouldn’t 100% take them at their word and start depleting my resources in an attempt to help them become a doctor, because in a month or two, the teen will tell me they no longer want to be a doctor but have decided on the career path of Famous Rock Star instead.

One of the sad facts of entering adulthood is that you are forced to make choices which you must stick to in order to be successful in your ventures. The person who decides early to stick to a career as an auto-mechanic will likely be much more successful in life than his peer who spends age 18 to 24 pursuing a career as psychologist, then quits and spends another 6 years attempting a career as an electrician, only to quit again to gain qualification as an accountant. Part of “adulthood” is about making choices that you stick to for the long term, so that those ventures have enough time to bear fruit. Those who change their minds too often rarely harvest the fruits of their labour. In other words, making a choice to go in one direction often closes the door to other choices. We allow children the latitude to change their minds as they grow-up, but after a time we start to insist they make a choice and stick to it.

Women as well change their minds like teenagers do. Sure, she might decide that (right now she feels like) she wants to be a doctor, but as evidence has shown in the medical profession, most women who train to be doctors spend less than a decade working full-time in said profession before quitting and deciding that (right now she feels like) she wants to be a mother. Afterwards, most of these women decide that (right now she feels like) she only wants to work as a part-time doctor. Of course, as time goes on, she has less and less experience than the male doctor who never “took a break” to explore other choices life had to offer and he quickly outpaces her in that field, even without the Patriarchy conspiring behind the scenes to hold her back.

.
When a woman tells you she will love you forever, insert the phrase (Right now I feel like) before it, so you get the proper translation into Womanese: “(Right now I feel like) I will love you forever. All evidence shows that this should include vows made at the altar as well, since the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women rather than men.

Q: “Do you take this man as your lawful wedded husband, to have and to hold until death do you part?”

A: “(Right now I feel like) I do!”

Sure women stick to their choices better than children do, but they don’t do it as well as men do either. In other words, women’s behaviour exists somewhere in between the child and the man… kinda like a teenager.   
.

Women’s Fitness-Tests are Similar to the Boundaries Which Children Seek

Anyone who has raised children knows that children seek boundaries and are happiest when they find such boundaries exist and understand there are consequences when they cross them. A child who does not have boundaries set by his parents will in the short term get his way, but will ultimately come to resent everything around him and become miserable.

Women are not much different. They will instinctively fitness-test a man with all kinds of irrational and basically abusive behaviour, to test the steel content of his balls by his ability to pass such tests and not put up with her crap. If the man passes her tests, she calms down and is content to live within the boundaries of behaviour which he sets for her. Once she knows there are boundaries and her man is willing to enforce them, she knows that her man is a capable provider and protector and she can relax and feel confident following his lead.

The behaviour of children seeking boundaries set for them by their parents and the fitness-testing behaviour of women with their lovers is remarkably similar.

(Related Study: Women Crave Boundaries) 

Men Love Women, Women Love Children, and Children Love Puppies

There is an “order” to how love works and the order works only in one direction. You can see hints to this in the Bible, where husbands are commanded to love their wives while wives are commanded to “honour” their husbands in return. Children as well are commanded to honour their parents. Love is a hierarchal beast that descends downward. The only way it works in reverse is via honour and respect, because the reciprocal “love” is never equal.

A child will never love its parents in the same fashion that parents will love their child. You will readily see parents willing to sacrifice for their children – sometimes with their very lives – but rarely will you see the same in reverse. In fact, even in society as a whole, we consider it to be “the right thing” when a father or a mother sacrifices their life in order to save the life of their child. The whole of raising children to adulthood involves enormous sacrifice on the part of the parents in the form of time, frustration, freely giving resources, the denial of the parent’s dreams, and so forth. It is never returned to the parents on an equal basis, not even when the child reaches adulthood, for by that time the child will likely have children of his own to whom he bestows most of his love upon. Although having children is a one-way-street of parents sacrificing for the betterment of their child, they are still instinctively compelled to do so even though, rationally speaking, it is not in the best interests of the parents. What parents can expect in return is that their children honour them and respect them for their sacrifices – but their love will never equal that which their parents have for them. It is just not part of the natural order of life.

In the same way, a woman’s love for a man will never be equal to a man’s love for a woman. The natural order and a woman’s hypergamous nature dictate that the man must be on a “higher level” than the woman. A man can love a woman just as a woman can love a child, but the reciprocal love is returned only in the form of honour and respect. Just as a child instinctively expects its parents to take care of them, so does a woman instinctively expect her man to take care of her. It is a one-way street. A woman will never be able to equally return a man’s love for her. At best, she can honour and respect him for what he does for her.

In fact, in the form of romantic love, you will find that women are not so much in love with the man as an individual person, but rather they are in love with the relationship. The man is merely a role-player and is easily replaced by another taking on the role. If any man expects to be an “equal partner” with his wife, he will soon find his woman disrespecting him and seeking out a man who is decidedly not her equal to lead her.

They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)

You cannot expect a woman to be your true confidant, your soul-mate, and your respite to lean upon during the stormy times in life. That is your role for her benefit. It does not work in reverse, for as soon as you believe it can work that way, she will lose confidence in your ability to lead her and begin to resent you. She will go about illustrating her resentment by making your life as miserable as she possibly can. This may be one of the hardest lessons for a man to learn in life because it turns the whole notion of modern love as an equal give-and-take relationship upon its ear. The implications can be rather depressing, as it means that on a certain level a man will always be alone. A parent who expects their child to also be their equal friend to lean upon for support, will also find himself sorely disappointed with the results. The child instinctively expects the parents to be superior and to cater to his needs. Expecting the reverse will only result in a resentful child and a heartbroken parent. The same order must be maintained between a man and a woman, lest she become resentful and seek out a man who actually will lead her.

The Terrible Twos

”If one looks around at today's culture and takes note of all the destructive effects of the female attitude of entitlement, then went on to devise social controls which would prevent such destructive effects in the future, I think you would end up with social values very much like the ones currently labeled "patriarchal."

Rather than viewing feminism as "conditioning" women to behave in completely self-centered ways, I see it more as a case of feminism regarding the socialization process which countered the natural tendency of all organisms toward selfishness - as "oppression."

Every parent who has had daily involvement in raising a child is familiar with the stage called "the terrible twos." This is the stage during which the naturally selfish infant is forced to come to terms with the fact that their desires will not always be met and their will not always prevail. I have no doubt that if the child were able to express what it knows in its "special infantile way of knowing", that it would consider the imposition of external values on it to be "oppression."

 The vast majority of women I have met have seemed to be stuck emotionally at about age two. Any frustration of their desires would result in a tantrum. In many cases these were more subtle than throwing herself on the floor and thrashing around, but it was a tantrum nonetheless. So, rather than saying that feminism "conditioned" women to behave in an immature, selfish, and totally self-centered fashion, I would describe it as feminism destroying the social value system and the process of conditioning women out of their infantile and narcissistic world view.” -- The Wisdom of Zenpriest

Your Bratty Little Sister

”... Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; … A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world they are most proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it. ..." -- Lord Chesterfield, Letter to His Son (1748)

In the sense of seduction, a man is well advised to treat a woman as if she were his bratty little sister:

”…The more you patronizingly treat women like bratty kid sisters, the more their vaj takes over their critical thinking skills. It all harkens back to the one fundamental principle guiding male-female relations: Chicks love submitting to powerful men. And what is a bigger demonstration of male sexual power than believing that a woman is so far beneath you that she is the equivalent of a child, hardly deserving of a serious answer or an emotional investment?

So what does “everything she does is cute” mean in practice? It means not getting riled up when she tests you. It means not explaining yourself when she stamps her wee feet and wags a finger at you. It means never acting apologetic when she’s upset with some mysterious infraction you’ve committed. Keep in mind that when a woman gets upset, at least half the time she’s not really upset with whatever misdemeanor she’s accusing you of; she’s just upset that your behavior caused a temporary reversal of gina tingle induction.

The “everything she does is cute” game tactic is defined more precisely as an inner game refinement. When you start thinking of women as adorable brats who know not what they do, you start treating them in ways consistent with your beliefs. With enough reprogramming in the right direction (i.e. kicking the supports out from under her pedestal), soon the words coming out of your mouth will be effortless verbal expressions of what you actually feel. And therein lies the secret to being a natural — naturals truly believe the charmingly jerkoff things they say to women.” -- Chateau Heartiste

(Also see "Lesson Thirteen: Charm is Treating Women Like Little Girls" -- The Book of Pook)

Conclusion

Despite what most relationship “experts” try to tell you, the key to a successful relationship is not about open, honest communication.

 

It is true, there must be a form of “mutual respect,” but the respect cannot be equal in all ways. A parent can respect a child and respect the child’s needs, but for a parent to treat the child as an equal would be a grave mistake. In a similar way, a man can respect a woman, but if he deems to treat her as his equal, she will soon come to resent him and leave to seek a man who actually portrays himself as superior – as a leader – to her. She seeks this instinctively. She is an empty vessel who seeks to be filled with a strong man's "truths." In the realm of seduction, a woman also seeks out a man who is able to behave in a superior fashion to her, so even if you are not yet convinced that women are as mere children but only of a larger growth, you would be well advised to treat her as one if only from the standpoint of keeping her romantically interested in you.

When a man marries a woman, he doubles his duties while halving his rights. This was true even in the days of Marriage 1.0. It is a large responsibility involving much effort to take on a wife, just as it is for one to take on raising children. You cannot expect children, or women, to fulfill your needs for emotional intimacy nor to be “someone to lean on” during times of strife. Just the opposite, for that is your duty as a parent and also as a husband.

Most of our modern laws, and nearly all of the “experts” in the social sciences, have done everything they possibly can to undermine a man’s ability to properly “husband” his wife. The current state of affairs completely upsets the natural hierarchy between man and woman. In the same way that it would be nearly impossible for parents to properly raise children if the government passed a plethora of laws deconstructing parent’s natural roles and restricting them from setting boundaries for children, so it is increasingly difficult for a man to properly fulfill his leadership role that women instinctively seek and need. When children have legal authority over their parents, chaos will ensue, just as in Marriage 2.0 where women hold supremacy over the husbands, the practice of matrimony will only harm and bring resentment to all parties involved, making one ill-advised to seek such an arrangement in life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.” -- Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, "Gloria: In Her Own Words." 

Related: Zenpriest #41 - Feminism is an Extended Infantile Tantrum

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

 

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

.................... 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***An addition to this article*** I kind of get a kick watching this article get linked to on Reddit. It causes quite a bit of controversy and has a lot of people pretty angry, especially women. Some of their arguments are pretty silly though. The most glaring one is people calling what Schopenhauer says as "science from the 1850's." Umm, Schopenhauer is a philosopher, not a scientist. Learn the difference. Also, there is one ridiculous person in there (who goes to every reddit around to repeatedly complain about this article) who continually points out that I linked to Angry Harry, "who is just another blogger like me," and points out that AH's "source" for "the more you emote, the less you think" is the Daily Mail. She does not point out, however, that the Daily Mail's article she is referring to is cited by "peer reviewed research," done by a feminist, no less, and Angry Harry merely read the research and translated what she said. Furthermore, Angry Harry has multiple degrees, a Ph D. in Psychology and the others I believe are related to childhood education - making him extremely qualified to critique the research and comment on what it means. Angry Harry often has written about how the school system has been rejigged to favour girls over boys, and it is his area of expertise to note the different brain functions of the sexes. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly little harpie!

Further, you will quickly see how angry women get about this discussion, but not men - except for the mangina's and white knights trying curry favour and approval from anonymous females on the internet with whom they have absolutely no chance of getting sex from - yet they still feel compelled to grovel like servile worms in front of them. My goodness, I half expect that if women gave those men a dull, rusty pocketknife, they would castrate themselves to gain the ladies' approval. But, to note, I have not yet seen one single man get angry that this article blatantly suggests men are more immature than women from pretty much the age of 12 to 28. I mean, no teenage boy nor man in his twenties takes any offense whatsoever to the suggestion that they are not as mature as their female peers, yet women and their enablers are having virtual heart-attacks over the suggestion that men may have some advantage over females.

“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)

And, to note, it is virtually accepted scientifically that girls do, indeed, mature faster than boys, both physically and mentally. (Which already proves the male and female brain are not the same). Physically, for example, in puberty girls mature faster than boys in such things as height. But as we all know, while boys start their growth spurt later than girls, boys grow to be significantly taller than girls. Furthermore, males also do not fully fill-out muscularly until they reach their late twenties. However, an 18 year old female is pretty much at her peak of physical development at that age, and by her late twenties is beginning to decline.

As such, those who are angry at this article are, on the one hand, acknowledging the superiority of women (they mature faster than boys) but then complaining - screeching like children actually - that there is some advantage which males will gain later in life. In other words, they are trying to show the superiority of the female brain, not its equality. If a female brain matures faster than a male's, and also, ends up having no disadvantages but only (at the minimum) equality with the male brain thereafter, then it is quite obvious that they are claiming the female brain is superior to the male brain, because if it matures faster, and is also in every way just as capable, then it is superior because it only has advantages, but not corresponding disadvantages. This reminds me of a verse from Angry Harry's marvelous poem, If I Only Had a V:

If I only had a V
I would use it expertly
To generate equality
That somehow always favours me

Boy, I wonder how loud the childish squealing would get if I pointed out other philosophers and writers from the past who argued things such as women's height being between that of a child and a man, or that their facial features and skin are intermediate between a child's and a man's... 

As someone who grew up through the brunt of feminism's sickness in the 1970's, 80's and 90's, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have heard of the superiority of the female brain's multi-tasking abilities. "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah," the females taunted, from teenagers to old women to fat orca's with TV talk shows. (They are still doing it today in their "A Woman's Nation" and "End of Men" articles). Never once has it been acceptable to point out that men's linear thinking brain is the one that is capable of intense and deep concentration, precisely because it does not multi-task, and thus why virtually all of the world's inventions with more than two moving parts have come from the hands of men, plus the majority of great musicians, artists, philosophers and so on. Women's multi-tasking brains are like the phrase "jack of all trades, but master of none." It helps them do other tasks while also tending to children. (Most women spent the majority of their entire adult lives either pregnant or caring for their children until very recently in human history). For every advantage there is a disadvantage. For every cloud, there is a silver lining. (And for every "point seven" of a chapter, there are multiple other points which must be taken into account to gain context, just as for every "chapter," there are other chapters which make up a book's message. Sorry for not stuffing the whole "book" into one 350 page-long blog post to make sure the screechers got exposed to them all at once!)

As such, I have to give the RedPill Reddit kudos for not taking this article off of their sidebar, despite the constant grief they have received over it. Remember, when you're getting lots of flak it means you're right over the target.

Further reading:

Sexual Psychology  

The Hard-Wired Difference Between Male and Female Brains Could Explain Why Men Are Better At Map Reading - Researchers found that many of the connections in a typical male brain run between the front and the back of the same side of the brain, whereas in women the connections are more likely to run from side to side between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This difference in the way the nerve connections in the brain are “hardwired” occurs during adolescence when many of the secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair in men and breasts in women develop under the influence of sex hormones, the study found. The researchers believe the physical differences between the two sexes in the way the brain is hardwired could play an important role in understanding why men are in general better at spatial tasks involving muscle control while women are better at verbal tasks involving memory and intuition.

... Because the female connections link the left hemisphere, which is associated with logical thinking, with the right, which is linked with intuition, this could help to explain why women tend to do better than men at intuitive tasks, she added. “Intuition is thinking without thinking. It's what people call gut feelings. Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skill which are linked with being good mothers,” Professor Verma said.

(Note that male brains run front to back, thus not crossing logic with emotion as with women). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol! Here's some humorous reading for you!

That poor schlub will be involuntarily celibate or horribly resented and abused for a long time to come if he doesn't understand that when learning to hunt deer, you observe the deer and take advice from the hunter. It does not work nearly so well the other way around.

"Woman does not betray her secret" -- Immanuel Kant

"From a woman you can learn nothing of women." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Here are some hunters I would recommend taking advice from:

Women, Teasing, Tests, One-itis and Hope
Understanding Women and "The Rules" for Men
Dating Advice From a Father
The Book of Bonecrker
The Book of Pook

Rites of Passage - Boys to Men

Quite often when we think of “Rites of Passage” the image of a primitive society performing some bizarre ritual comes to mind, such as the Vanuatu Land Divers.

"Both a harvest ritual and a rite of passage amongst the tribes of the small pacific island of Vanuatu, land diving is now a tourist phenomenon. The men who live on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu, climb a rickety 98-foot-tall (30-meter) tower, tie vines to their ankles and dive to the ground, falling at speeds around 45 mph (72 kph). When a dive goes correctly, the person gets close enough to touch his shoulders or his head to the earth. However, unlike bungee jumping, these vines aren’t elastic and a miscalculation in vine length could lead to broken legs, cracked skulls, or even death. Boys once they have been circumcised at about age 7 or 8 begin participating, though they usually are permitted to jump from a shorter tower. As a boy makes his first dive, his mother holds an item representing his childhood. When he jumps, she throws the item away. Divers also refrain from sex the day before they jump — legend says it will cause the jump to go badly." -- 10 Bizarre Rites of Passage

I, however, would argue that rites of passage are actually more of a sign of an advanced society. It is patriarchy that builds civilization. Patriarchy is the idea of "putting sex to work," which is based on the ancient contract of marriage. The ancient contract of marriage is an economic contract whereby a woman "sells" her sexual reproductive abilities to a man (ie. the children of marriage are his children, not hers) in return for the superior protection and providing abilities a man can, and will, procure once yoked to children of his own. What does this have to do with rites of passage, you ask? Well, in order for men to be attractive to women, a man must surpass the female so that he has some tangible benefit to offer the female which she either cannot do herself, or is unwilling to do herself, and therefore fulfill Briffault's Law:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault's Law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

It is the nature of the female's mothering instinct to be 100% totalitarian. Small children need this type of totalitarianism or they would soon get themselves into all sorts of trouble. Thus every boy starts off life completely dominated by a female and it takes a decisive change to escape his mother's gravity field and grow into a man so that the next generation of women will have men to marry. For all the ballyhooing in the media of "the man-child" and for all the haughty snipes of women at males to "be a man," they don't seem to understand that in order to be a man, he cannot behave like a woman. Our thoroughly feminized society has relentlessly propagandized us to believe "the right way" for humans to behave is "the female way" while at the same time has attacked and derided everything that once defined masculinity as "macho" and unfavourable.

Just as children are not equal to adults, men are not equal to women - a "man," who is a man in the true sense of the word, has surpassed the level of women and has grown beyond it. This fulfills Briffault's Law and also enforces the hypergamy which women need to be exposed to in order to be sexually attracted to a man. Thus, a family hierarchy develops - and this hierarchy works... we know it works because we have historical evidence of it working for several thousands of years in our very own Western Culture - the family as based upon the Bible.

Man --> Woman --> Children

It's the natural order of things. Women take care of themselves and children, and men take care of themselves, women and children. It does not work in reverse. 

Lots of women spit and fume about this, but what they are forgetting when they are told Biblically to submit to their husbands, is that husbands are also commanded to submit to God, or to The Truth. And as Jesus pointed out, to rule is to serve. Thus, this is the proper ordering of human existence if we are to live above that of the beasts of the field. Only when a man lives in proper accordance to The Truth can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him.   

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children

In reality, there is no such thing as equality. All relationships are hierarchical in one way or another. Sometimes they change, or often what is going on underneath is entirely different than what appears on the surface. The men who stood on the deck of the Titanic so that their women could survive is an example of how the underlying hierarchy is often different than the social appearance of hierarchy.

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women

"Equality" really only has meaning in relation to the sphere of human law - in the realm that all people are equal before the law in regard to their rights as put forth by the American Founding Fathers: The rights to self-ownership, life, liberty and property. Certainly not the "right" to a job, or to healthcare, nor to be able to vote to bankrupt the future of one's children so that we may party it up today on their credit card bill.

"Men" are not on the same level as women. When men consider themselves "equal" to women, they are resented and disrespected by women. The sexes are different, and thus need different things from each-other. Women need men to be their tool in society, and therefore men have to bring something to women that women cannot do themselves. (Watch how birds court each-other) Thus, if he remains "equal" to a woman, she has no use for him. A "man" has to graduate beyond the level of women - if he doesn't he will be completely flattened by women when he encounters them. It is women's natural right to be in authority over children but it is not right for women to be in control over men. If a man behaves as a boy and relates to his wife as "Is it OK for me to be me, Mommy?" he is not a man equal to women - he is beneath them. This is what happens in many marriages today - the husband ends up treating his wife as his mother, and as such she begins to resent him. How can something that is her own creation (a boy, a child) be equal to its creator? 

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Only when boys separate from the totalitarian power of the Mother and grow into men do they truly have a sphere to address women and from which women respect them as men. However, women instinctively try to prevent boys from leaving their field of power - children are women's "possessions" and who wants to lose a possession? To mother, he will always be "her little boy." Also, it is not wrong for it to be a struggle to escape the totalitarianism of mother, for manhood not "won" is not manhood at all. Women cannot show boys how to become men because it is an entirely foreign concept to them - just as children cannot show adults how to behave because adulthood is something children simply don't understand. Women are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict, which might cause people's feelings to get hurt, and thus, they try to prevent boys from growing away from their field of influence and into men.

"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." -- Fred Reed

Women want us all to be women - or children - because that is what they understand. They have no comprehension of "men" or what it takes to be a man. Children deprived of their fathers through divorce are horribly abused in this way, for they get "aborted" at the female/child stage of development and have far greater challenges "growing into men" and learning how to address women in any other way than seeking the approval of mother. 

Along with the thorough feminization of our culture, so have we removed many of the aspects that used to make boys into men, and in turn we are finding that there are less and less "men" for women to want to associate with. Once a woman enters into a male institution, it immediately becomes feminized - thus we now even see that girls are allowed into the Boy Scouts. Men and boys need to have places separate from women where they can meet and be men, free from female influence.

Learning self-reliance and self-confidence is essential for boys. Thus things such as camping and learning how to build fires from scratch are good builders of character for young boys. Women are creatures who depend upon others, but men are creatures who must depend solely upon themselves. Not only must they depend upon themselves, but they must also be able to depend on themselves in excess, or they will not become sufficient "tools" for the next generation of women.

In our feminized school systems, when children play sports like soccer they no longer keep score so that the children's feelings will not be hurt by being "losers." This again undermines masculinity. When I was a kid, I played on a soccer team and we were the worst team in the league. I don't think we won a single game all season - but our coach did a very good job with us in teaching us how to lose gracefully. It builds a boy's character to lose and accept it. Many endeavors a man takes on in life will not be successful, but learning how to lose gives him the confidence to try anyway... and if he keeps on trying because he is not afraid of losing, sooner or later he will find success. Our schools are "aborting" boys development by robbing them of the opportunity to lose - and when they can't figure out why boys aren't developing properly, they fill them with Ritalin rather than addressing the fact that boys and girls are different, and need different strategies to develop.

Learning to deal with the bully is also a rite of passage for many boys. I remember as a young boy when my father taught me how to stand up to the bully. I had gone to a private Christian school as a child and there was this one kid named Peter who was constantly bullying me. Two grades higher than me and bigger than me. One weekend we were at a church camp-out, shortly before my 11th birthday, and Peter started picking on me and shoving me around in his usual way. I remember I went running back to find my Dad and told him what was going on. 

My dad told me, "Boy, there's just some times that you are gonna have to take care of these things on your own."

I still remember his words, and in fact, have followed lots of them to this day.

- Always walk from a fight, but never run.
- There's a time for talking, and then there's a time to stop talking.
- Once you get into a fight, fight to win. But even if you don't win, you've got to show him (and the others) that when they mess with you there's going to be consequences.

I recall him providing me with a strategy too. "There's nothing 'fair' about this fight. This kid is two years older than you and he's bigger than you. If you have to knee him in the nuts, then do it, and start punching him - and don't stop until he's on the ground."

I remember walking back out to where all the kids were playing, and that's how it worked out. He started shoving me around again, and I kneed him right in the nuts, and punched him in the head about five or six times as he was going down, then I turned and walked away. Everyone was shocked.

When I walked back amongst the row of RV's, as soon as I rounded the corner, there popped out my old man (he must have been watching). I was trembling like a leaf. He just put his arm around me - never said a word to me about it, neither good nor bad - just walked with me.

Today, here in Canada, there is a great big "anti-bullying" campaign going on. All the kids are encouraged to wear pink shirts to symbolize they are against bullying, there are bullying "hotlines" set up, and every time there is a conflict between two kids, the mothers are called in to the principal's office to "work things out." Apparently, at some school in Toronto, there is a ten year old boy who decided he was gay (how can you decide you are gay when you are ten?). In order to keep this "gay" ten year old from being bullied, the school has appointed a teacher to walk around with him full-time to keep him safe. The old "schoolyard rules" have been completely abolished and we are raising our boys to be feminized sissies, not independent men confident in their own abilities. 

Being bullied is part of life for men and it is important for them to learn how to stick up for themselves. 

Re-framing this culturally, the boys of today are similarly being bullied by feminists. It's a similar 'fair' fight. They're bigger, smarter and they fight very dirty. And this is something this generation of boys needs to sort out themselves, because the older guys will not be around forever. Perhaps becoming Men Going Their Own Way and passing feminism's cultural fitness-tests might be the new Rite of Passage for the boys and men of today and tomorrow.

Related: Diagnosis ODD -- by Hawaiian Libertarian

"Mothers find in their children satisfaction for their desire to dominate, a possession, an occupation, something that is wholly intelligible to them and can be chattered with: the sum of all this is what mother love is; it is to be compared with an artist's love for his work.  Pregnancy has made women kinder, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, which is closely related to the feminine character: it consists of male mothers." -- Freiderich Nietzsche 
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW 

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

.................... 

Any Gal of Mine

.
I like this song. It brings back memories of a time about 16 years ago now, after I had split up with a girlfriend I had been with for a couple of years. There was a pub that I used to frequent and quite often they hired a Newfie named Gordon, who was quite a talented one-man band, to play music there. I became quite good friends with him over time. After I had split with my girlfriend, when I would walk into the pub and he noticed me, his next song would always be, Garth Brooks' Friends in Low Places. Gord would often sit at my table in between sets and have a beer with me... and I'd always tell him, "You know what I want to hear, Gord." and he would make his next song, "This one goes out to Rob," and he would sing "Any Gal of Mine," the whole pub would laugh, because they knew it was my favourite song. He even screeched me in as an honourary Newfie. Since I'm one of them now, I'm allowed to poke fun of them - although, sometimes they come back at me with "What's black and blue and floats in they bay? The last Mainlander who made a Newfie joke." Newfies are a lot of fun to party with... if you can understand what the hell they are saying. "Deed I is me 'ol cock, and long may your big jib draw!"   

Anyway, back to this ex-girlfriend I broke up with. I had suspected already for a few weeks that "something was wrong." I should have trusted my gut. As the weeks went by, a friend of mine dropped by work and said he seen me and the girlfriend driving around in her truck that afternoon but I must not have seen him because I didn't wave back... I hadn't been with her driving around in her truck that afternoon, so then I knew. (Her truck had tinted windows and the guy she was cheating on me with had the same colour hair as me etc.). I had a little bit of time therefore, to collect myself and figure out a strategy for dumping her. I was sick of all the antagonism that happens after a break-up, and decided to "kill it with kindness" - especially since we lived in a small town and would inevitably be bumping into each-other from time to time... forever. So, I called her up and asked to meet after work, and did the deed. I asked her if she was seeing someone else, and she denied it. I told I thought it was good for us to spend some time apart, and we should break up... she told me I was an asshole... I responded, "It's too bad you feel that way because I really enjoyed going out with you." And that was that, we broke up.    

Of course, that's not the end of the story. (You didn't really think it was, did you?).

When people would ask me about the ex and what happened, I just refused to talk about it - I never bad-mouthed her. I just said, "She was a nice girl, but things just didn't work out." I think about the worst that I said about her was when people asked me about my snowmobile (I was an avid and well-known snowmobiler in my community) - if they asked me if I had done any performance work on it for this season, I would reply, "Yeah, I light-weighted it by around 130lbs." Everyone would laugh. I would see the ex around town, driving her new boyfriend's truck, and she would give me "the death glare" - I smiled and waved. The truth was, though, I was really hurt by the whole thing. I was just determined not to let it show. I didn't realize it at the time, but I played the biggest mind-game on her of all - and that was not my intention. It was simply my intention not to have her as an enemy. But I think it drove her insane.  

It was quite a revealing situation for me on how females work. It soon became that several of her friends would show up at the pub and sit with me. Two of them I had slept with earlier in life - I discovered that both of them had lost their virginity to me. (I didn't know that). Also my ex's best friend started coming on to me in a big way. I never slept with her because as the SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) that I was back in the mid-nineties, as well as keeping with my intention of not making the ex into an enemy, I didn't want to create troubles with the ex - even though her friend couldn't have made it any clearer she wanted me to screw her stupid. I would even come back from the washroom at the pub, and the two girls I had already slept with were describing my cock and its size to her. Women tell everything about sex and relationships to each-other - right down to the most intimate details. Men never do this. It is really stupid of women too. They brag about their boyfriend and how good of a sex life they are having with him, and the next thing you know, their friends want to try some of that too. In retrospect, I should have given the "best-friend" a good grudge-fucking - I didn't owe the ex anything after she cheated on me. Lol! Also, when you start walking into the pub in a small town and notice there are entire tables of women that you've slept with at some time or another... it's perhaps time to move. It's also further evidence that social proofing amongst women is real.

After about two months, the ex could no longer stand it. She picked up the phone and called me. "Are you mad at me?" She asked. "No, why would I be mad?" I replied (lied). I unwittingly opened up a future shit storm by doing this however. After this, she acted like nothing had happened. She started calling me or visiting me at work three or four times a week. "We used to be so close... I miss you... I still like talking to you... you know, the reason we broke up was nothing to do with sex... it just kinda happened.... we had a communication problem." (Yeah, like you failing to communicate to me that you were banging another guy). This lasted for a month or so before I finally put my foot down. I told her that was enough. I had been more than gracious about what had all happened, and I didn't think it was a good idea for us to be "friends" - at least not until a year or two had gone by.

This did not stop things, however. Soon, she was dropping by work, creating excuses. "I still had this t-shirt of yours, and thought I would stop in and return it." I told her I didn't care. Keep it.

Then snowmobiling season started, and everyone knew I went "night riding" on Fridays. A group usually formed on Friday nights and I would often be "the leader" because I knew the mountains so well I always knew where I was, even at night. (The RCMP and Search and Rescue have contacted me in emergencies too).

 I couldn't believe it. Guess who was sitting amongst the group in the parking lot but the ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. She had convinced him to buy a snowmobile and now they were going to come riding with me together. What the hell? She had never gone snowmobiling before meeting me, and he had never been snowmobiling before - sledding was "my thing." They even joined the Snowmobile Club together as "a couple." I didn't know what to say or do. I didn't own the mountain, and there were about 20 people there. I just went riding and said nothing, but it irritated the living hell out of me. 

I called her later on that week and said we needed to talk. "I can't," she replied, "I have a boyfriend." I told her she had a boyfriend when she met him too, and if she would like, I could call him and ask if it was ok, since he must know how many times she'd called or visited me over the past while - I'm sure he knows about it and won't mind if we talk.

Anyway, we did meet up that evening and I told her, "Look, I've been more than gracious about this whole thing. You were the one who cheated on me and I've done nothing back to you. I don't even criticize you for it, and you know it. I think it's completely unfair of you to invade my Friday night riding - you know it's 'my thing.' Let's continue to keep things civil between us, so please, go sledding all you want, but leave my Friday night rides alone." She, of course, denied there was anything sinister about it, but agreed to respect my request. I heard later that some other people had mentioned to her that was pretty bold of them, and she tried to excuse it by claiming "safety." My new boyfriend doesn't know the mountains very well, and it's so much safer to ride with Rob.

Guess who was waiting in the parking lot the next weekend?

I was so pissed off, I rode like a crazy son-of-a-bitch all night. I had the meanest, biggest machine you could buy at that time. I took everyone on the twistiest, bumpiest, most jumpiest and difficult trails I knew of as fast as I possibly could ride - which was pretty fast. Every-time we would stop for a bit people would be "Holy, what's gotten into you tonight? We can barely keep up."

Then when we stopped in the club's warm-up cabin... I remember it pretty clearly. I was sitting next to the wood-stove looking down into the can of beer in my hand. The new boyfriend started shooting off his mouth about how great his new Ski-doo brand snowmobile was and started poking fun of a couple other guy's Polaris sleds. Now... my daddy rode Polaris, my brother rode Polaris, and I rode Polaris. I didn't raise my head at all but kept looking down at the floor, and started speaking rather loudly, "You know, it's one thing that you were banging my girlfriend behind my back, and it's another thing that you're so fucking stupid to think you can come riding with me... BUT I'LL BE GOD-DAMMED IF I'M GONNA SIT HERE AND LET YOU CUT DOWN POLARIS SNOWMOBILES!!!"

By the time I looked up, I only seen the ass end of the ex and her boyfriend - coats and helmets in hand rather than on - getting out of the cabin as fast as they could. "Vroom" they were gone. They also broke up that weekend.

It was after this experience with that ex-girlfriend that I really began to clue into the behaviour of women. (Yeah, I was a bit slower than you younger guys - we didn't have the internet back then either). I began observing people in their relationships and "how things worked." Being from a small town really helped, because I knew so many people over such long periods of their lives that I knew many people's relationship history. It was also a time when I moved from my mid-twenties to beyond - the time when Schopenhauer declares that men start to pass women in maturity:

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

Men really are tools to women. And just like we often say about "game" - "it's simply a tool, it can be used for good or bad." So it is when women adhere to Briffault's Law and use men as "tools." 

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

Just because a woman is associating with you and using you as her tool, does not necessarily mean that the benefit she gets from the man-tool is used for good. Sometimes it is used for her to promote an evil agenda.

I wrote a lengthy comment at the Spearhead the other day. In it I described how women go on a binge and purge cycle after denying their sex-drives. Here is a part of it I would like to refer to:

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she fucks thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again. 

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

One of the main reasons to avoid chicks who are married or are in long-term relationships, aside from basic moral values, is because of a very important reason I left out in the above comment. It's not that women just use the first guy as an emotional tampon or to gauge her sexual market value... quite often they will use you as the direct catalyst for a break-up, they themselves being too chicken to actually simply break up with their boyfriend/husband. Your purpose as a her "tool" in these situations is often to force her husband/boyfriend to dump her while creating as much drama as she possibly can. It's not smart to be that kind of particular tool because now you have made a very deeply motivated enemy - especially if it involves a marriage and the man loses his children, his house and his freedom.

Learn the cycle women go through - observe her behaviour. Always be the second guy to screw her after a relationship, never be the first. It's safer, it's more morally pure, and you'll get the better sex out of her than all the other "tools" have gotten: 1 - The Longterm Pair-bonded Tool, 2 - The Emotional Tampon/Orbiter/Break-up Catalyst Tool, 3 - The Tool used to satiate her cravings with wild, hot, kinky sex, and 4 - The next Longterm Pair-bonded Tool.  

I'll take door number three any day of the week.

Also I learned that once it's over, make it over. Tell her to get lost. Don't be too nice to her. She screwed you around and you don't owe her any kindness. You don't have to go out of your way to be an asshole, but don't be friendly either. Change your phone-number if you have to. Women continue to shit-test you even after you've broken up - and by that time, it's based on pure evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.” Sometimes this happens—which, incidentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A significant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step. -- F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, p.8