Updated: 15.1.23.
This text will be viewed by many left-wingers as "chauvinist". Not because it's chauvinist (it isn't), but because leftists are so brainwashed: after decades of being served an idealized image of women in the media and in popular culture - the romanticized image of a self-sacrificing, loving being that is usually the victim of a selfish male brute - the typical leftist considers even the slightest honest analysis of women to be an expression of pathological hatred, political extremism or however else they choose to falsely define it. They are so used to putting women on a pedestal (while using (white) men as scapegoats for pretty much everything), that any kind of "criticism" (i.e. objective appraisal of the "victimized sex") strikes them as blasphemy, heresy, as misogynistic or whatever.
What you'll read here, however, isn't criticism but merely an analysis of a rarely-discussed topic, hopefully in an objective way. I am neither for nor against women, just as I'm neither for nor against men. It's childish to "take sides" in these heated "gender wars". Besides, the genders were never created with the purpose of fighting each other but to compliment each other while working toward a common goal (which is survival): a crucial principle which leftists are completely oblivious to. Marxists want a struggle, a war, in everything: be it class, race or gender. They seek to cause division, intolerance and hatred (how ironic) in every segment of society, always seeking for an angle that they can exploit to turn one "side" against the other. The reason, obviously, for this sociopathic approach is the destabilization of society, which is sought in order to weaken it enough for eventual takeover - or, if they already are in charge, in order to use the always reliable "divide and conquer" strategy. Deflect from the true problems by creating fake ones. To better rule the population. Make them hate each other...
We've been bombarded for decades with the false image of the woman as an innocent, selfless, gullible, perpetual victim of the conniving, deceptive, animal-driven man: a typical fabrication of the "elites" who promote Political Correctness. If you have fallen for this fallacy then certainly you will barely understand any of what I have to say, because your built-in "hate mechanisms" will be instantly triggered, preventing you from allowing new information in. Different information i.e. an opposing view. Left-wingers essentially are less adept at processing new/opposing information than non-leftists. One of the cleverest and most dangerous aspects of cultural Marxism is for its victims to become immune to all views that go against left-wing indoctrination. "Whoever disagrees with us is our instant enemy." Commies are really no better than 15th-century clergy.
It's not the women that are the victims, it's all of us: victims of left-wing extremism. The sooner dumbed-down, downward-spiraling western civilization realizes this, the sooner it has a chance to perhaps recover, reverse (some of) the damage, hence maybe not go down the way of Ancient Rome or pre-Christian Pedophile Greece.
I tried (not very successfully) to avoid straying too much from the topic, i.e. delving into the vast array of differences between men and women. This post has the potential to be endless. It still ended up lengthy, because the fact is that every sub-topic leads like a spider-web into several others - which I can't resist not touching upon - so it's very difficult to talk about any narrowly defined aspect of the genders, staying focused on it with the necessary writing discipline.
I'd decided not to do any research whatsoever on this subject (which I anyway do very little of), but to make conclusions (or at least theories) based purely on personal observations and what I already know as fact. This would have been a real obstacle if I were only 18, when I knew pretty much zero about female mentality let alone the existence of masochistic women. But since I'm a lot older than that, I believe I've accumulated enough info over the decades to be arrogant enough to post something like this.
How can I be so confident though?
Some gender questions may be complex but they're hardly rocket science: if you have common sense (a rare commodity in this century) and you're not zombified by current political/social fads then you're bound to reach some decent, accurate conclusions which some "experts" may have already reached before... or not. Because men and women are all around us; rockets aren't. And because all of us are either one or the other (except hipsters, they're unigender wussies), whereas none of us are rockets.
I hope this amazing analogy between genders and rocket engineering gets you excited for what you are about to read.
Get ready for a rather messy text though. I stray from the topic frequently then jump back, or skip to the next idea. It's a bit chaotic, but I am not seeking out a prize for "best-written essay". Thank God, I am not in school anymore...
 |
| Speaking of schools... I'd never taken piano lessons. Not from this woman anyway. (A scene from "Piano Teacher".) |
Women & Masochism
First the basics.
The sexual act is between a pitcher and a catcher. Who is the active one in this? The man. He is the doer. The woman is the receiver i.e. the passive non-doer. (Or not-much-doer.) Certainly the intercourse itself takes place between an active organ and a passive one, between an organ that balloons up like a puffer fish and a lazy cave-like organ that just sits there, preferably a little more moist than usual. Even the act of flirtation is traditionally a male domain, whereby a man approaches a female and then aggressively pursues his goal of "getting it in", while trying to convince the female that he has "nobler goals" than just sexual gratification: again, it's the man who is active, or more active. (Young millennial skanks may have changed this somewhat, but among animals the male is the pursuer in 99.9% of all species.) By their very nature sadists are active, masochists are passive. So are men and women a ying-yangy sado-masochistic match made in Heaven? Hell?
To some extent, perhaps. An over-simplification maybe, but there is truth to this. I mean, there is truth to the fact that they may be good as a sado-masochistic combo. Generally speaking though, men and women are a relatively poor match, certainly personality-wise, due to the variety of differences in mentality, some of which I'll touch on.
But there's hormones and other bio-chemistry going on too, not just the different twixt-the-legs tools. Men's higher levels of testosterone make them more physically aggressive than women, or certainly potentially more dangerous once violence is initiated. Aggression is (in)directly related to sadism; it is as if sadism is a pathological by-product of the "wrong" kind of influence of testosterone or excessive testosterone. Or perhaps sadism is a very natural side-effect of it. (After all, even psychopathy has to be considered natural since it exists and it's been proven to be purely genetic. It may not be an aberration, but it's natural. It wasn't created in a lab by Nazis or Commies.) Physical aggression, I mean. Certainly there can be no sadism without an excess of aggression - some sort of extra-aggressive inclinations.
Additionally, testosterone makes men more confident, which is why they are generally much less indecisive, hence much more suitable to be leaders and politicians, bosses. An alpha male is far more efficient in leading a society, or a clan, than an alpha female. Decisiveness and confidence are traits more commonly found in sadists than masochists, so there is a certain correlation there too perhaps: not necessarily a very strong connection, but reliable enough to serve as a hint, if nothing. Which is perhaps why women are logically/naturally drawn toward sadistic men - just as they are attracted to confident, brash men. The so-called "bad boys". (The fact that very few women admit to preferring violent assholes to meek, sensitive nerds is an entirely different matter though...)
 |
| Is this how a humanist, a do-gooder celebrates a (dumb) award? Nah. This is the celebration of a narcissist egomaniac. I.e. a typical left-winger. So in love with himself, yet so keen to convince the world that his love is reserved primarily for humanity. Or in this case, only for femaleinity. James Cameron, billionaire "Marxist" and director of garbage such as "Titanic" and the two retarded "Avatard" movies, is on record for claiming that, and I'm paraphrasing, "testosterone is a toxin and needs to be eradicated from men". Hollywood is well-known for being a viper den of deviant neo-Marxists, but even by Hollywood's far-Left standards Cameron is one of the biggest extremists in that deranged world. The great irony in this is that Cameron's best friends - man-hating feminists - are on average more inundated with testosterone than average women! Feminist aggression and anger are often a result of excessive testosterone, i.e. the very things they are fighting against - men and testosterone - are the things that bring them much further away from other women! Hilarious stuff. The stupidity of Hollywood's degenerate "elites" has always been nothing short of legendary, but it's a special kind of stupidity that is additionally toxic because it entails so much arrogance as well. Toxic Cameron? Yet more irony... |
Programmed to Desire Bad-Boys
The likelihood of a "bad boy" being sadistic is far higher than a meek nerd enjoying dishing out punishment. Sure, there's that phenomenon too - meek sadistic nerds - but most likely sadism is more prevalent among "tougher" males. I am not aware of any studies that prove this (which doesn't mean they don't exist), but it makes sense, because a meek male has less testosterone hence is less violent and confident hence is less likely to develop sadistic tendencies - or at least less likely to put them into practice.
Besides, this isn't particularly relevant, whether alphas or nerds are more sadistic. Perhaps some alphas turn to sadism simply because they can, to exercise more blatantly the power they possess (or believe they possess), while some nerds may turn to sadism as an expression of sexual frustration stemming from their biological and/or social inferiority.
(A very politically-incorrect theory exists that incompetent/nerdy males and ugly women - i.e. "low-quality" men and women - are more likely to exhibit anti-social behaviour. In fact, I may have just invented this theory, I don't know. I certainly believe that "low" males/females are more likely to have nasty/nastier personality traits than the "high" males/females. This goes counter to popular belief, i.e. we have been brainwashed through virtue-signaling popular left-wing culture to accept the absurd, idealistic myth that ugly people are victims, are kind, and should be pitied. Even a dumb, irrelevant movie such as "Revenge of the Nerds" can be offered as very obvious evidence of this cultural romantization of the physically weak males, just as there is plenty of similar evidence of the idealization of the allegedly "kind nature" of homely (and fat) women. Another example is the completely false myth that obese people are "jolly". They most certainly aren't; some of them may laugh more, but they do this in order to hide their frustrations, hence outward behaviour such as laughter is not a sure-fire method of ruling out nastiness and/or depression and/or frustration.
It is completely natural for people whose appearance is "below par" (which leads often to a lower social status hence much less or zero mating opportunities with desired "high" males/females) to be jealous and resentful of "higher-quality" humans - which in turn leads to anti-social behaviour or at least negative attitudes and personality traits. Negativity leads to corruption of the character, that much should be obvious.
Again, all of this is very un-PC because in left-wing ideology anyone who is considered to be struggling, has less, or is at the bottom of the social chain is automatically branded as a "better person", or a vastly underestimated, undiscovered gem.
Idiotic stereotypes surround us, and left-wing Disney-bubble morons are more susceptible to them, to these cheesy traps.
Of course, this is all just generally speaking i.e. there are plenty of evil beautiful women and abhorrent alpha males on one hand and decent "low-quality" humans on the other. I am referring to averages.
Bad-boy alphas (or alpha wannabes) being more likely to be sadistic is just a very general rule; as we know, there is that somewhat true cliche of the powerful CEO who goes to a dominatrix once a week to have his ass spanked while crawling on all fours. I am not saying this is the rule, that a lot of them behave this way, but this does exist i.e. high-tier individuals whose entire lives revolve around power yet who secretly live out fantasies in which they are submissive. (Nevertheless, this is a cliche perpetuated and exaggerated by popular culture.)
So yeah, human psychology can be rather complex. Which is why I am not assigning neat, exact boxes for all men and all women, but am generalizing.
Yes: generalizing. That thing politically-correct morons consider a vice. Because they don't understand what the word entails. (But I discussed this already in my racism & equality post.)
Female Sadism
Physical aggression is one thing though, very much a male domain. Mental aggression i.e. psychological sadism, however, is the expert field of women. They engage in sometimes elaborate shenanigans, when they target a competing female or a man who left them or who they feel wronged them in some ways.
Women are more vengeful than men. Vengeance is generally speaking irrational (it's debatable to what extent) and by definition has no practical purpose (except to please the hurt ego - which shrinks might argue is a valid motive), which is why the less rational gender engages in it more. Vengeance however entails risks with it, risks of retribution and legal repercussions (for more extreme forms of vengeance), which is why women go into revenge mode a lot less than they otherwise would. Sure, men too would take up revenge more if there were no repercussions, but then men are far bigger risk-takers (as a result of testosterone hence confidence) so fear of consequences is less of a deterrence for men than the more fearful, more cautious female sex.
Vengeance is the primary way in which women expose their sadistic side. After all, I never said women can't be sadists... They very well can. It's just that their sadism is far more likely to be displayed through nagging, nasty gossip, lies, conspiracy and slander.
Women are the less rational gender. (Averages. I am not lumping everyone into one category.) This should be fairly obvious to anyone whose three brain-cells aren't polluted by political correctness. They are less logical, less adept at mathematics, less capable of solving abstract puzzles, less able to properly analyze the big picture, much more susceptible to becoming religious fanatics, much more likely to believe in the horoscope, less adept at playing chess. This is to some extent a result of their more developed emotionalism which in turn is a result of their different hormonal picture.
That this a highly un-PC stance doesn't interest me in the slightest. I am here to discuss facts, not (left-wing) fiction. I can just as easily make "'sweeping negative statements" about men, which I might do in some other post.
Who is more likely to experience pain during sex? The woman; for example, if she's a virgin, or if she has a small vagina, or the man has a large penis (not to mention the entanglement of a large penis and a small vagina), or simply because the vadge is so anatomically complex that a large number of complications/annoyances could occur, making sex unpleasant or boring for women rather than fun.
From all this we start to understand why women may be programmed to seek out pain, or at least to accept it as a given. Any guy experiencing pain or discomfort during sex would most likely stop having it until he fixes the problem, or waits for it to go away. In the case of women, not only are they more likely to tolerate pain, but they may actually unconsciously seek it. The thrill of a large penis pounding away at them: a cliche? Not really. Certainly many women have expressed their preference for large penises. I can't imagine that pain has absolutely nothing to do with this choice. Sure it does.
Rape Fantasies
A barely known fact is that a significant number of women have rape fantasies. There is a feeling of shame connected to sexual fantasies - let alone ones as "perverted" as this one - hence generally only shrinks are acquainted with this bizarre phenomenon. This doesn't necessarily mean that every one of these women would want to be raped in real life; far from it, but this is a very telling bit of information which only supports the masochistic theory. The vast majority of women, whether they admit it or not, i.e. whether they are even aware of it or not, like being overpowered by a man, being under his control during sex, being submissive: all of this has clear and undeniable masochistic undercurrents.
The rape fantasy also tells us just how detached from reality women can get: most of them are quite unaware of just what a violent, ugly act it must be, and this naivety allows them to actually take that leap into such a strange fantasy, in which they idealize/romanticize the act of rape itself, picturing it in a way that is most likely quite unrealistic (and probably not nearly as violent as the real deal). It depends on the woman though; some women perhaps have very brutal rape fantasies, some may prefer rape lite. For more details, talk to your local psychiatrist.
Love and Truth
Love.
What is love really - to a woman?
No, don't ask women that! They are notoriously unreliable and self-contradictory. (Both sexes use denial plentifully, but women excel at this.) They tend to lie to themselves first, hence to others as well.
Having less confidence and being more indecisive means being more susceptible to the Establishment's politically-correct brainwashing than men, and this in turn results in women being less able or less willing to reach realistic conclusions about themselves and their environment - which is nowadays nearly always the result of left-wing indoctrination.
Translation: because women are more obedient toward authority they prefer to go with the flow rather than against the grain, and even this is a vast understatement; very few women stray from this kind of behaviour. A woman from Nazi Germany was highly likely to become a Nazi and to wholeheartedly support this psycho ideology, more so than a German man. This same woman, transported to the present, for example if she's a wealthy or middle-class resident of 21st-century New York, is very likely to be a liberal, to sing praises about racial and class equality. Yes, women are ideological pushovers. Their beliefs can be molded with much more ease than men's.
 |
| Nearly all female pop stars of this era are involved in one way or another with what they proudly refer to as "activism". Not any type of activism mind you, nothing that could be described as very useful or genuinely beneficial to society or the environment. They are only interested in movements and topics that are currently fashionable and pro-Establishment. In other words, LGBT , "feminism" and "climate change", for example. None of these sexually overactive couch-casting pinheads are interested in workers' rights in India, or in saving the rhino, or fighting for stricter prison sentences for pedophiles, or anything like that. (A lot of their friends are pedos, so why would they want to get on their bad side...) They only pick "causes" that can endear them even more to the Establishment and to all their airhead brainwashed fans. It is a cynical PR decision based usually on profit - but also on obsequiousness toward authority (as long as that authority isn't Republican or Tory). Besides, it is fashionable in and of itself to have a cause to virtue-signal about on social media. Pop stars, especially women, never tire of it. Anyway, all it takes is a minute to post a politically-correct statement shorter than 140 characters... Even a chimp can do it. And you get 100s or 1000s of likes, the left-wing Establishment media loves you for it, AND your ego bloats even more. A win-win-win situation for these floozies. Pick a random million-selling pop starlet, go to their Wikipedia page, and chances are very high you will find "political activist" or "social activist" (which is the same shit really) among the tags. Most of them are tagged "feminists" or refer to themselves that way, regardless of their pet cause. This is doubly hilarious because most of these self-appointed "feminists" sold their bodies to men to forge careers, and rely solely on men to write/produce/perform their music, they rely mostly on male managers, and are financed by male executives. They never address that though, very conveniently. It has become such a laughable cliche, these decadent/narcissist female starlets and their "activism". Yes, please convince me how much you care for the planet and for other women... This behaviour is no coincidence. You will find less phony-baloney "activism" on the Wikipedia pages of male pop stars (or actors). If nothing else, you are at least likely to find a wider variety of "causes" that male celebs are involved with. Because men care more than women? No, nearly all celebs of this type are abhorrent narcissistic egomaniacs, gender has nothing to do with it. But fact is that men are less sycophantic, less obedient, bigger individualists (even pop stars, ha ha), less predictable - hence less likely to pick LGBT and climate change as their pet causes. Some male pop stars may even secretly harbor right-wing sentiments, but hide them. Whereas practically 100% of female celebs (pop stars, actresses) believe in everything the left-wing media writes. Women being political pushovers who go with the flow is a phenomenon that is extremely obvious, and evidence for it can be found in abundance among women of all types and ages and geographic locations. |
Women, lacking confidence and having less common sense, are easier prey for political extremism - which appeals to emotions instead of the intellect - which is why they vote more stupidly than men in nearly all democratic countries. In America, without the female vote, it's not unlikely that nearly all close elections lost by Republican presidential/senatorial candidates would have been won by them. Women are born virtue-signalers, liars, self-deceivers and are fairly gullible. Hence why their opinions on hot political and social topics are often completely unreliable and fairly dishonest. Generally speaking, women show less interest in politics hence know about it less than men. It is fairly common for women to vote for the better-looking candidate: this is a huge elephant-in-the-room truth/secret which is very rarely discussed in the media. Because we must keep up the image of the "underestimated, intelligent, decent" female, mustn't we. That means keeping the truth under wraps...
Women are far more concerned with their social status than the truth: they are fantasists and compliment-seekers, first and foremost. Men are more down-to-Earth and less reliant on positive feedback. (Please note that I am using the comparative form here, i.e. I am not saying men are down-to-Earth and reasonable, because most of them aren't.) Facebook and Instagram are great examples of how women require constant flattery in order to maintain some semblance of self-respect and confidence.
Women thrive on "likes" (that ridiculous, entirely useless internet "currency") much more than men, and there are two types of likes they seek out:
1) likes of the photos in which they try to represent themselves as sexy or pretty, and
2) likes regarding their social and political beliefs (on Twitter, for example); women opt to believe in and support Marxist lies primarily because being Establishment sycophants results in getting far more likes and acceptance on social media, because it is "what the majority believes in" - or so they delusionally believe is the case. Women are bigger sheep than men. Sheep are passive. Sheep are far more likely to get beaten than to beat down others. Once again submission hence masochism is implied somewhere underneath all this.
Women and Children First...
Another reason you shouldn't ask a woman what she wants and needs, or ask of her just a general appraisal of her former men, is that women are more like children than like adults. Sure, men are being teased about being "childish" because they lose themselves in sports and because they get fanatical about playing computer games, but it's women that are essentially more child-like, (in some ways) less mature. The very deceptive cliche that women mature quicker is misleading and only a half-truth: girls mature quicker than boys - but only until the age of 15-16 which is when boys i.e. men start overtaking women in terms of intellect, and to a lesser extent maturity.
On a side-note, women mature physically earlier because they need to be ready earlier to produce offspring, because their fertility span is far shorter than men's, and also because men generally pick females younger than themselves.
Besides, there are different types of maturity: there is social maturity i.e. the ability and need to act responsibly, and there is intellectual maturity which is self-explanatory. Women are stronger than men in social maturity, men excel more in intellectual maturity. This ties in neatly with men being more adept at handling abstract concepts, and with women having higher emotional intelligence.
This is perfectly logical: men are programmed to hunt and fight i.e. problem-solve (which requires higher levels of logic), whereas women are programmed to take care of the management of kids, food and shelter - the domestic chores (which requires higher emotional and social intelligence i.e. higher social maturity). Extremist feminists flip their lids over this; they bang their empty heads against the wall upon hearing these self-evident facts, but it's their ostrich-head-in-the-sand mentality that leads them to ignore nearly all self-evident facts about genders, hence get angry at people who have the courage and the sense to accept these facts. It is natural for feminists to resent realists, because feminists are so used to running away from reality - just so they can pursue their elusive male-hating fantasies.
"Women and children first!" says a lot more about human society than might appear to be the case at first. Why "women and children first"? Are men's lives worth less? Well, yeah: if you ask Oprah, Hillary or Jon Stewart. But no, it's simply that women and children are considered physically and mentally weaker hence require urgent help in emergency situations, while men are counted upon to use their greater physical strength, greater confidence and greater resourcefulness to get out of trouble on their own, with less reliance on others, to be helped only after the safety of kids and women are ensured. As the stronger sex (in almost every sense), men are expected to be protectors hence take risks and even sacrifice their lives for their offspring - which automatically includes women as well, because women are the primary caretakers of this offspring.
Nature is mostly logical. Failure by extremist feminists to recognize and accept this blatant logic makes them illogical, stupid even. Pure and simple.
Accountability
One particularly nasty childish trait is to negate personal responsibility i.e. to pin the blame for one's own misdeeds always on others: this is what women are experts at. A woman is far less likely to apologize to a man for a mistake she'd made than vice versa. I know this from personal experience as well as from observation of other people's interaction. (Only morons make broad conclusions based only from personal experience.) Accountability is one of the key signs of maturity, yet it is here where women fail often. Ask a woman about her relationship history and she is likely to label all her previous relationships as failures, essentially claiming "it was all his fault" for each case. Such unashamedly subjective (and self-centered) mentality doesn't provide a good basis for women to serve as reliable witnesses, or even as interview partners in sexual studies.
One shouldn't take at face value what women say; one needs to learn to interpret what they actually mean to say, not because they necessarily intentionally deceive but because they are so confused and insecure. Women's tendency to completely avoid self-criticism makes them very poor objective analysts of their own situations. Or rather, women do exercise self-criticism but it's limited almost exclusively to their physical appearance, something they are obsessed with - especially the recent generations of women, the skanky "post-moral" millennial women. (Hipsters should get excited I used their favourite prefix.) Women totally exaggerate their own physical inadequacies (sometimes even inventing them), while rarely criticizing their own behavior! This is a rather odd paradox, and it is far more common among women.
Men are more direct and to the point, whereas women are more about beating around the bush (no pun intended); indecisive, and lying to themselves hence indirectly to others too.
Both genders tend to be sheep, tend to go with the majority flow, but women are much worse in this. Women have a far greater conflict with truth i.e. with reality than men do. (Having been cave-dwellers as opposed to hunters may have something to do with this. Being in a cave means you're more cut off from reality, whereas hunting prey means you are in the thick of it.) Especially regarding gender relations it's best not to rely on female testimony which sometimes not only doesn't reflect a woman's real feeling/opinion on the subject, but which may actually lead you to believe the opposite of that which she secretly (and unknowingly?) believes is the case. For reasons I listed earlier.
Hence why a woman can't even easily define her priorities: does she prefer a large penis or a large wallet?
The typical woman is liable to answer that it's neither, that she is most drawn to... drum roll... "sensitive men with a sense of humour", which is the kind of PC bullshit answer they'd been trained since their teenhood to parrot like zombies. They do this because they not only fish for compliments far more than men, but they are far bigger virtue-signalers too - because they are more obedient to authority. Insecurity makes one more reliant on compliments, and more likely to conform.
Arrange a hilarious stand-up comedian as a date for a high-quality woman and she will have great fun. But if he is bald, short and fat, and turns out to be too sensitive, soft, a pushover - then chances are he doesn't stand any chance whatsoever: even some lower-tier women might flat-out reject him. She may at best place him as a "friend zone" companion, which is a zone reserved for "beta cucks" who don't mind being a woman's reserve option, their stand-by potential partners; men with no dignity and low-self-esteem i.e. low-tier males. (We are so similar to our close relatives the chimps, it's hilarious. They too have betas trying to kiss ass, waiting patiently and sycophantically for a brief opportunity at sex with a female.)
In fact, studies show that even some (high-quality) women in stable and lasting relationships have one or two betas standing around obsequiously, waiting/hoping for a chance at a relationship, or at least that one-off sex. The myth of women being far less promiscuous and more sexually loyal is laughable; extensive studies show that nowadays young western women have more sexual partners than young western men. (The math still works out, because it is a small alpha-male minority that has numerous partners, while the beta majority gets less sexual partners than most women, or even none at all.)
A somewhat older genetic study shows that 10% of all children born in the UK are "cuckoo's eggs", which proves that either English women are sluts - or far more likely that women in general have a strong impulse to marry a reliable beta but to secretly get impregnated by an alpha lover, in order to obtain better genes for her children. This type of deceptive behaviour is biologically sound i.e. clever from an evolutionary standpoint, because it takes the best from both worlds: the best genes (from alphas) and the best financial security (from betas) - but it does imply the need for a certain level of deviousness and underhandedness in the female sex. In order to achieve this "cuckoo ideal", a woman is forced to be a liar and an actress, a master-manipulator in the emotional sense. Their higher emotional intelligence gives them an edge over men, hence increases the likelihood that the male raises someone else's child.
Women are naturally and sexually drawn toward men with power, authority and confidence, and are actually repulsed by men who exhibit meekness and pussiness. A sense of humour is merely a nice bonus, an icing on the cake: it's not the cake itself. After all, a woman can get her "entertainment" elsewhere: namely, from her beta hangers-on, her friend-zone buddies who try so hard to keep her laughing, hoping she'll eventually relent and let them get one in. They are there to make her laugh, while her alpha partner is there for her sexual and social-status needs. (Her partner may not be an alpha, but this doesn't change the disbalance of power between the higher-quality beta and the lower-quality beta friendzoners.) Besides, any man with even a mediocre sense of humour will have noticed how easy-peasy it is to make a woman laugh. Most women will laugh at anything. (The stern, frigid, sexually frustrated, quasi-intellectual librarian types won't laugh at the best gag, on the other hand. Stay away from those...) I am constantly amazed at the kind of pathetic, cringe-worthy jokes women fall for. Yet, they will rarely admit that an amusing partner is far less relevant to them than one that has lots of money, status or penis-action, or they might reluctantly admit to it only after intense probing. In fact, many women aren't even aware that they possess these compulsions, tendencies and preferences, because they lie to themselves which is why they are mired in self-contradiction and swim in a sea of confusion.
Yes, women tend to be rather confused. They don't usually lie on purpose, they lie because they don't understand themselves. They don't understand themselves for the same reason they don't understand reality: because they fear and dislike the (harsh) truth. By running away from truth and reality they lock themselves into a fantasy world - which inevitably must lead to confusion.
A Misunderstanding Over Empathy
The phrase "women are so understanding" is a semantic misunderstanding. They are more likely to express their empathy than men. This doesn't have anything to do with better "understanding" or having more empathy. Ironically, women have the least empathy toward other women, which is partly why cheesy feminist slogans such as "sisters unite" are such a farce... Because the very idea of female solidarity is rather dubious and unrealistic.
It's a widespread myth, or rather a misunderstanding. Women are simply more emotional which leads often to the very misleading conclusion that women are the softer, kinder sex. They are not. Or to be more precise, they are kind only toward (their) children and to a lesser extent cute animals. Their empathy is mostly reserved for their offspring and kittens. Women can be very cold toward men, including their partners, and when (young) men experience that (for the first time) from women close to them they are quite shocked, because they'd been mislead their whole lives to believe the opposite.
Young women with no kids yet are in fact the least empathetic, the most selfish and self-centered demographic, right after little children. Only once they give birth do most women discover their compassion and empathy, because hormonal changes alter their brain chemistry substantially. (There are always exceptions, of course.) But this empathy is literally focused only on the infant (and cats), rarely their husbands and boyfriends. Studies show that men have more empathy and emotional devotion (call it love if you will) toward women than the other way round. This is especially noticeable among young women from this modern, "emancipated", skank-bang era. The typical young, pre-marriage western woman in her 20s is totally self-centered and quite uninterested in the needs of her boyfriend. The ME-ME-ME generation. The Tik-Tok Degeneration. The great irony to be concluded from this is that young men are greater romantics than young women! This especially goes for the current era.
Both sexes, while in love, tend to idealize their partner, to romanticize i.e. exaggerate their worth. However, there's a crucial difference: while men tend to idealize the women's personality and physical appearance, women tend to idealize the man's abilities and social status: his potential to protect her and financially support her. Women's devotion is inherently more selfish than men's. Hence it is less genuine, in a way. Many women are barely aware of this about themselves (the ones this applies to), precisely because of denial and a lack of honesty toward themselves.
And yet we are lead to believe the cultural Marxist dogma that women are victims, more morally pure, more humane...
Political correctness idealizes women and exaggerates their "goodness" and abilities - while intentionally vilifying men as self-centered, violent, dominant, overrated brutes. (Certainly overly jealous/insecure beta cucks such as James Cameron have happily fallen into this trap.) We are inundated by these kinds of fallacies, lies and myths, to the extend where they have come to be accepted as self-evident knowledge and fact. A very dangerous development which ultimately harms both genders equally.
When women speak of "love" what they actually speak of is material/financial security, social status and physical protection - first and foremost. They would never say or admit this, obviously, because they usually aren't even aware of it. 99% of them would vehemently deny what I just said (probably get a little bitchy too or even outright hysterical in their righteous feminist fury - which is encouraged by left-wingers), but that is in fact how it is. Women seek security and protection, which is understandable given their biological "inferiority", and they confuse these very selfish impulses with love - at least the way we understand this word from romantic literature and other sources that over-idealize human existence. As soon as a young woman meets a better protector, a stronger man, and a richer suitor than the one they currently have, they tend to easily and instantly fall out of love. They then slowly start devising their "escape plan": they want this other, "better" guy instead to replace the previous one, and they do this in a way that is very calculated and devoid of emotion, usually devoid of empathy for the cheated partner. Some men carry out break-ups of their own initiation with the same amount of coldness, for the same reason, no doubt about that. But they transfer their more genuine love to this new partner, whereas women transfer their self-centered type of love to theirs. I.e. these women weren't "in love" with the former guy to begin with, at least not in the romantic sense of the word. He was just the "best option around for that time period".
Women tend to idealize more too; they are idealists, more prone to worship. Men are more pragmatic. Though this depends largely on the area: women are often better at controlling household finances than men, which shows a certain practicality that men lack. Men being risk-takers means that many of them might quickly spend their money on nonsense, such as gambling or a foolish business venture.
Appearances can be very deceptive, especially when it comes to genders. Women in fact have far less empathy toward men than vice versa. Women's true love is reserved almost purely for their offspring (and their Facebook accounts), while men don't experience love toward their children quite as strongly.
This could be because:
a) men can always make new kids, can have many kids, hundreds potentially (if they are mega-alphas like Genghis Khan), whereas women can "only" have 10-15 at the very most hence women "value" each child more i.e. love him more than men do, and
b) men were programmed to love women primarily, in order to be forced to stay with them and protect them, hence ensuring the continuation of this retarded bipedal species. Because if men were biologically programmed to only impregnate a woman and then bugger off, like some mammal species do, humans as a species would never have survived for so long. Hence a woman's natural manipulation talents, stemming from her superior emotional intelligence, which are there to deceive/convince the male to stay with her despite his strong urge to move on to the next (possibly better) females. This is how a homely woman gets to keep a good-looking guy, in case you ever wondered. She panders to his ego. A foolish guy will fall for these "ego traps". A homely women compliments her (better-looking) partner far more than a great-looking woman compliments hers. If you ever notice a couple - good-looking guy with a homely woman - pay attention to how she is physically all over him, all smiles. Likewise, if you notice a great-looking woman with a homely guy with no money, notice...
No, wait. That never happens. Great-looking women will extremely rarely partner up with a homely or average guy with average or low social status. Or if they do it, by some miracle, it lasts only until she realizes she can have someone better. These are brief relationships, and very rare.
In other words, "love" in a man serves primarily the function of keeping him loyal to his woman so she and his offspring remain protected, whereas in a woman love serves primarily the function of ensuring she is completely committed to the children who first and foremost require her urgent, direct attention. This is why so many marriages fall apart as soon as the woman gives birth: her top priority, which is the child, becomes so obviously skewed/biased/extreme that many of men's egos can't deal with becoming second fiddle to the child, and interpret her change of focus (in)correctly as proof that she never loved him in the first place. The man simply fails to understand that he is there first-and-foremost as a semen/money provider and protector, not as an object of her limitless affection. Hence the joke about men seeking for a woman that will mother them, because a man's mother truly loves him, whereas his sexual partner doesn't, or not nearly as much. Most men will only experience true love from their mothers, not their wives/girlfriends.
This, in turn, might explain part of the reason why mothers hate their daughters-in-law. Several reasons in fact. The mothers know from their own experience how little they care(d) for their partners compared to how much they love their children, so they detest the fact that their sons are going to be victims of this female deception - the same way these mothers had done this decades earlier when they were themselves young. Karma. Poetic Justice. What goes around comes around.
Men primarily love women. And women primarily love their children. (And money: but that's just a means to an end, which is to finance their kids, at least ideally i.e. generally speaking this is how it is or how it is biologically meant to be.)
This means that the genders have a different set of priorities hence different strengths/weaknesses, different motives, different goals. Or rather, the goal is the same, but the means and methods used to achieve that goal (survival of the species) are different. This is where most of the problems between a male and a female arise, due to these different approaches which stem from very different mentalities.
Pain Threshold
Pregnancy is another major clue. I've always felt that it forces women to be more masochistic. The old feminist cliche that "women can tolerate pain better" which results in the trite joke that "if men had to bear children we'd go extinct" is mostly false. Studies have shown that men have a higher tolerance for pain than women, which is logical since they are more often confronted with it: skirmishes with male rivals, wars, doing sports... It is just that women are programmed to enjoy pain more, simply because of child-birth and even more so playing the passive role in sex. Sure, child-birth used to be as deadly and dangerous as war or a fist-fight, but its pain is different: it is predictable. In a battle a man never knows which part of his body might be injured, whereas during child-birth there is no such uncertainty. I sense that this might be a crucial distinction. I may be wrong though. This is more speculative.
However, the "we'd go extinct if men gave birth" cliche may be true in the sense that if a man gave birth he'd find it so intolerable that his logic would force him to never repeat the ordeal again. Women, being less logical and bigger masochists, are less likely to reach this decision, hence make the decision to have additional children.
This physical masochism seems to invariably overlap into mental masochism i.e. relationship pain. This would explain why women are far more likely to remain in a mentally abusive relationship than abused men, in addition to being more likely to withstand physical torture from a man than vice versa. Women are physically weaker, which means that the abuser by definition is more likely to be the man, hence why women are perhaps assigned the masochistic role by nature, to better cope with innate male aggression.
It is however very important to mention a U.S. statistic that states that in domestic violence in roughly 60% of all cases men initiated the violence. Most people assume that this figure must be 90% or even higher - which is yet another result of politically-correct culture telling us to view the female as the perpetual victim, much as they instruct us that we must accept black people as continual victims of white people and racism, never as victims of their own bad behaviour. By taking responsibility away from women, left-wing western society is telling them to feel more entitled than men, and to treat men as scapegoats for a variety of problems they encounter. This partially explains why women have never been more selfish and self-centered than now. It is not emancipation, but the complete opposite: a destruction of both sexes, a successful attempt to destroy society from within by re-writing the rule-book from scratch (i.e. from nonsensical Marxist theories based on anti-science and fictional biology).
When a woman can't get out of an "abusive" relationship, she very often chooses to remain in it because she is still financially secure with the man and because he physically protects her. As ironic and contradictory as this may sound: the man acting as abuser as well as protector. Nature is often absurd, at least on a philosophical level.
Which might explain why we have the Stockholm Syndrome? It happens predominantly to women. It is a strange phenomenon by which a captive woman eventually ends up being emotionally attached to her kidnapper. Throughout history, women were generally captured far more by invading tribes than men, who were immediately slayed instead, or sold as slaves. In order to survive, these women had to adapt, which is to say they had to quickly re-program themselves to focus on sexually pleasing their invading captors, perhaps even the same man who killed her husband and maybe even her kids! Once again, a certain level of acceptance of suffering as a normal state is implied here, which in turn connects us again to female masochism. Not to mention that the Stockholm Syndrome has some very unflattering implications regarding lack of female loyalty. Which in turn serves as more proof that there was no real love their toward her man to begin with.
This notion that a woman stays in an abusive relationship just "because we have children together" is not necessarily true. As long as the kids are financially and physically safe, a woman will not leave the abusive man. Women who refuse to leave a man who sexually or extremely physically abuses their kids is an abnormal, dysfunctional woman, not the type of typical woman I am discussing. A normal, functional woman would never leave her kids at such a risk - because they are her priority not the man - hence she would leave such a dangerous man in order to protect the kids who are her no 1 concern. (A reminder: a man's no 1 concern is to mate with the best possible female - or females, plural. Raising kids isn't nearly as high a priority as sex. Especially alphas struggle to be "tamed" this way, to become responsible men who won't cheat. Betas are bigger pushovers, hence more suitable for a woman long-term.) A woman always balances just how much violence against kids is too much violence. As she should.
Abuse = Power?
Also, some women stay with their abusers because they equate abuse with power - and to women power is very sexy. Some women simply adore alpha males who beat up other men, they are turned on by it. (The low-quality women, usually, the rabble and the chavs.) Some women literally get horny watching their man beat up another man, especially if that man was a real or potential threat to them, and especially to her personally. (Before having children, women are by far the more egotistical, self-centered sex. They seek a man to please her needs, while largely ignoring the man's own needs or she just gives into his needs because she has to, not because she wants to.)
Some women go so far as to intentionally provoke a physical conflict between two suitors to check which one is stronger, hence the better protector. (NatGeoWild...) Some women actually initiate fights between her own partner and a potential suitor (or even just a random guy), just to be able to enjoy the spectacle. These kinds of low-quality women get off on having two guys fight over her. Guys who marry such women are invariably low-quality too, i.e. complete morons.
This is why women are notoriously drawn towards so-called "bad boys". They are drawn toward successful displays of strength and violence. It excites them to witness a raw display of power, violence, confidence, arrogance, because all these equate to strength i.e. manliness. And strength/manliness means protection hence survival.
Pretty simple. (Though not simple enough for feminists to understand.)
To illustrate just how extreme female attraction to male violence can get, consider the existence of hybristophilia. The word applies to women who are sexually attracted to men which they know committed (heavy-duty) crimes. Some of these women even get orgasms based on this pathological attraction. This is why notorious serial-killers receive hundreds of fan mail from women attracted to such degenerates. I have personally met such a woman; she collected books and documentaries on Jeffrey Dahmer, despite the fact that he was a serial-killer, a homosexual and a cannibal. She wasn't just fascinated by him, she was sexually crazy for him.
These kinds of phenomena underscore the increasingly obvious fact that women are the more irrational sex, more enslaved by their age-old impulses and instincts than men are, hence are logically (?) more prone to be masochistic. The cliche that only the penis has such power over a person is only half the truth: women are slaves to their own peculiar genetic foibles; it's just that theirs are less obvious. And it's less PC to discuss women this way, hence most males don't know.
Insanity
Nor is it PC to discuss gender differences regarding mental illness: a very taboo subject. It is near-impossible to find reliable, honest, non-biased texts on this subject in the left-wing-dominated mainstream media and on major internet sites (which are predominantly in the hands of the Cultural Marxism Brigade). So it is important to learn to read between the lines.
One way I managed to find evidence of a disparity between the rates of male and female insanity was to circumvent the articles that discussed mental illness directly, as a whole. Instead, I came across something very interesting while reading the Wikipedia page on 2D:4D ratio differences (finger lengths), where I found a very useful table that divided the effects of estrogen as compared to the effects of testosterone and androgen. In other words, a table that unintentionally serves as a more-or-less precise division of male and female traits and tendencies! This article, based on numerous studies (some of them admittedly shit), confirmed what I'd long suspected: that women were more prone to schizophrenia, anxiety and depression. (Even the mainstream media admits to depression being more common among women, but that's only because that way women can be made out to be even bigger victims, and besides which depression doesn't have the kind of "loony" negative stigma of schizophrenia.)
In all likelihood, this list can be extended to other basic categories/ailments such as manic-depression, psychosis and catatonia. Men are far more likely to become alcoholics and drug addicts, but those are choices as opposed to hereditary and hormonal factors (despite the fact that people are thought to be allegedly born with the tendency for addiction). Men are far more likely to be psychopaths (1 in 100 among white Europeans, 2 out of 100 in the US of A), but it is questionable if this can even be considered a mental disease since the psychopath is perfectly aware of all of his actions and because this anomaly in no way impedes a person's success or functionality; quite to the contrary, an intelligent psychopath is far more likely to climb up very high on the status/society ladder than an empathetic person. Most politicians are psychopaths, sociopaths or borderline i.e. narcissists. Ditto CEOs.
Why was my suspicion of the mainstream media legitimate in this particular case?
Because it would have been normal hence expected to discuss differing gender rates, for example for schizophrenia, in texts that dealt with mental illness. Demographics always vary; sometimes insignificantly, sometimes moderately, sometimes drastically. But since the subject of gender differences was being avoided everywhere, or just brushed off as irrelevant, I made the logical assumption that it's women who have higher rates of mental disease.
Why did I assume this? Simple: because if men had higher rates then all of the mainstream media would be talking about it, incessantly. Because men are treated as scapegoats for everything. It was hence a matter of logical deduction.
The fact that generally speaking men are sadists and women are masochists fits in neatly with the idea that women are more prone to mental illness. The fact that menstruation and menopause have such a huge effect on their lives only bolster this fact, plus the fact that there is no hormonal equivalent for men, at least none with such hard-hitting negative effects. Or the fact that less testosterone makes women less confident hence more easily overcome by mental afflictions.
After all, if you had to choose which of the two - a sadist or a masochist - was "more abnormal", you'd have to pick the masochist. Being sadistic unfortunately suits nature's cruel "survival game" i.e. life in general, whereas masochism is contrary to survival, at least in most ways.
The Western Left doesn't want you to know how much less stable women are than men, simply because of their equality agenda. They downplay everything that doesn't suit their false anti-scientific worldview, and because most truths/realities/facts go against their idiotic Marxist ideology we find so many lies, half-truths and deceptions in their media - not to mention many truths being routinely circumvented by being totally ignored and pushed aside. Such as insanity, i.e. its higher frequency in women.
Marxism vs Nature
In modern Germany, which is completely immersed in PC bullshit and totally brainwashed by cultural Marxism (almost more than any other country), any open and obvious display of classic machismo is publicly decried by women (and society) - yet secretly worshiped by women! Their biological impulses tell them to support this macho behaviour, while their left-wing upbringing instructs them to be virtue-signaling compliant liars and condemn machismo. Thus an inner conflict arises, resulting in outer confusion/self-contradiction and havoc in the (brainwashed) woman. It's kind of similar to Hal-3000 going bonkers, short-circuiting in Space Odyssey 2001, as a result of receiving contradictory orders.
Marxism and biology/nature are in constant conflict, because Marx refused to accept most of the basic rules of nature. He ignored natural laws because he disliked them, because they wouldn't in any way shape or form fit into his stupid theories. Communism is based on anti-science, on wishful thinking, not on facts. It idealizes nature and man, unlike capitalism which deals with reality in a pragmatic way - what commies would refer to as "cynical". Ironical, the world's bigget cynics are disgruntled commietards, incapable of dealing with the failure of communism.
Power is the ultimate opiate, the ultimate aphrodisiac to a woman. Not the penis. (Whereas to a man, a woman's vagina, ass, and boobs are the ultimate aphrodisiac. To men, sex is almost purely about the physical act, whereas to women it's psychological more than physical.) That is why a hot young woman can hook up with a decrepit old fart, even marry him. It's not entirely just pretense and fakery though. A young woman marrying a much older guy for money isn't entirely materialistic, egotistical calculation; on some level she must find him appealing, even attractive, because his high social status gives him an edge which his physical appearance can't. For some young women a rich, ugly, short, fat, bald man is more appealing as a partner than a young, tall, poor, confident stud. Because women prioritize the well-being of their offspring over their sex-life - and that means being a "material girl", finding a guy who can secure the survival of the kids rather than just a guy who can give her instant orgasms but be a failure (or not good enough) in providing for their kids' most basic needs, let alone for example a higher education later on.
Women are hence naturally, biologically, genetically the more greedy sex. Men exhibit greed far more in terms of means to an end i.e. they might develop ambitiousness in order to become wealthy - just so they can have the best-looking female and get the best sex that they can. While women exhibit greed as a goal in and of itself: as security for their kids' survival.
Women are indeed far more materialistic than men. After all, which gender has shopping as their favourite hobby? But that's because they are obsessed with securing their offspring's survival whereas a man is more interested in instant physical gratification: the penis is very simple to please hence, whereas a vagina isn't. Nearly every man can enjoy sex, while up to half of all women hate it or are indifferent to it because statistically speaking at least a third of all women are either frigid or rarely experience sexual ecstasy, hence "good sex" is far lower on their list of priorities than it is for men, because many women don't even believe in or know about good sex. It is only with the recent degeneracy brought about by radical feminism that women are portrayed in popular culture to be just as sex-mad as men are. They aren't. Women want and need "love" far more than good sex and they use sex far more as a tool to ensnare a man who can financially support her and the future offspring. Which is why drunken young whores falling about in night-clubs, seeking to find one-off lays, are deeply unhappy with their lives, despite trying to convince themselves that "this is the right thing to do because men do it too." They proudly wave the flag of emancipation, stupidly/naively believing that this "new way" will lead to a better quality of life than their great-grandmothers had.
What these braindead skanks don't understand is that:
a) their biological clock is far shorter than men's, so men can afford to be promiscuous for much longer periods,
b) a man can impregnate a woman and then bugger off forever, while a woman is the one stuck with the child made during the one-night stand,
c) a man's social status/power grows with age, whereas her's declines with her gradual decline in appearance and rapid decline in fertility.
Hence why it is biologically - hence also socially - far more normal/acceptable for men to screw around than it is for women. It is wiser for women to be selective about whom they'll have sex with, precisely because the consequences of this choice (pregnancy) are far greater for the woman than for the man. Hence why promiscuous women are considered as "whores" i.e. "dumb whores" i.e. low-quality females, because they are showing a lack of wisdom and caution; they are displaying random non-selectiveness as opposed to caution and intelligence. They are acting as horny animals in heat, which isn't exactly a smart state to allow oneself to be in, especially when engaging in activities with potentially damaging results.
Nothing is accidental when it comes to the genders. There is a reason for everything. An explanation for every stereotype, for every cliche, for every aspect of male-female interaction. Hence there is no sense in men feeling ill will toward women or women toward men. The more you find about the opposite sex the better you will learn to cope with all of their idiosyncrasies.
Other Rants...
Reincarnation:
Infinity:
Marxism:
Hell Paradox:
Racism & Equality:
No comments:
Post a Comment